Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT MARK, CAMBERWELL BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

DURHAM MARKETS COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SAINT MARY, ALVERSTOKE, BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

ROCHESTER BRIDGE BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

WRITERS TO THE SIGNET WIDOWS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ROYAL FOUR TOWNS FISHING ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Expenditure Overseas

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in the light of the increase in overseas economic aid from £77 million in 1954–55 to £191 million in 1964, what savings she will make in order to curtail the total of Government spending overseas.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Barbara Castle): We shall not deliberately curtail the aid programme, but will seek to provide our aid in forms least detrimental to our balance of payments.

Mr. Digby: While recognising that economic aid is important, may I ask the right hon. Lady to bear in mind that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly tells us that we cannot afford to invest so much overseas, that it is up to the Government to set an example in this case and that she needs to bear in mind the return of this investment in economic terms?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member has got his order wrong. Private investment abroad goes overwhelmingly to the developed and not to the developing countries. In any event, the aid which we give is essential to provide the infrastructure without which investment would not take place.

Mr. Dell: Does my right hon. Friend's original Answer mean that there will be a reduction in multilateral aid as compared with bilateral aid?

Mrs. Castle: No. There was no such inference in my Answer.

Mr. R. Carr: Did the right hon. Lady's use of the word "deliberate" in her Answer indicate that she was expecting a decrease although not, perhaps, as a result of deliberate action?

Mrs. Castle: I am not expecting any decrease. On the contrary, I am hoping for an increase.

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a considerable amount


of private investment is still going to overseas developing countries, and will she urge her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to differentiate between the developing and the developed countries?

Mrs. Castle: Unfortunately, the rate of private investment in Commonwealth developing countries has been decreasing.

Colonial Territories (Health Services)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total financial aid being provided for health services to Colonial Territories; and to what extent this sum will be increased in the next financial year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): In the calendar year 1964 financial aid to Colonial Territories which can be identified within the field of medicine and health was about £750,000.
Additionally, there was British technical assistance expenditure in this field of approximately £320,000 and most Colonial Governments devoted a proportion of their budgetary aid and general development grants from Britain to medical and health services.
It is not possible to forecast whether and to what extent this aid will be increased in 1965–66 as the priority to be accorded to the development of health services is primarily a matter for Colonial Governments and legislatures.

Mr. Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent this aid reflects on the increase in the provision of maternity and tuberculosis services which are totally inadequate in many of the territories? Can he also say to what extent our decision to grant aid influences the policies of the units in these parts of the Commonwealth territories?

Mr. Oram: Those units are included in the services under this financial aid, but if my hon. Friend wants details of those particular services, I should be obliged if he would put down a further Question.

Agriculture, Education and Technology

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid her Department is now giving in the fields of agriculture, education and technology.

Mr. Oram: We are giving considerable aid in all these fields. I am with permission circulating some details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mills: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this form of aid is what is needed, but can he say what has happened to the much publicised plan to give away to overseas countries surplus food grown on our farms? This was put about quite a bit in the West Country by various Labour candidates, and I shall be interested to know what has happened to the plan.

Mr. Oram: There have been discussions in Rome about the World Food Programme, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement arising out of those discussions.

Following is the information:

1. Agriculture
Aid to agriculture falls under four heads:

(a) Technical assistance, which is the most significant contribution although not the most costly.
(b) Training.
(c) Capital aid, including agricultural research projects.
(d) Multilateral aid (FAO contribution).

As regards technical assistance aid, while requests exceed supply—there are at present some 180 unfilled vacancies—the short fall is a small proportion of posts filled. In 1964 1,342 Overseas Service Aid Scheme posts were filled and 61 technical assistance posts. The demand is for all types of agricultural experts, including general extension workers and specialists such as entomologists, plant pathologists and soil chemists, and is world wide, but concentrated largely in East and Central Africa.
In addition there is a scheme under which the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland carry additional posts on establishment (at present 30) to enable experienced officers to be seconded overseas. There are also institutions of the O.D.M., such as the Overseas Liaison Unit of the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Land Resources Division of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys, Tropical Products Institute and Tropical Stored Products Centre, which provide services, training and advice. Firms of agricultural consultants are used to undertake, in particular, feasibility studies such as a sugar


project in Nigeria. An agricultural mission made up of some 12 British experts in various forms of tropical agriculture, is in Bolivia.
Under training there is a studentship scheme (at present 20 per year) for training British graduates for overseas service in agriculture.
Recent examples of substantial aid for agriculture in the form of capital aid are the agricultural schemes in the Uganda loan for the establishment of a sisal industry, sugar development and group farms mechanisation.
Estimated expenditure on aid to agriculture during 1964 is £1,885,000, which excludes the cost of the Anti-Locust Research Centre, £140,000, and Desert Locust control, £12,000. New commitments were entered into in respect of grants, £3,793,000, and loans, £4,520,000. In addition expenditure totalling £12,635,000 was made in 1964 in respect of commitments entered into in previous years.

2. Education
Britain's total direct expenditure on aid towards education and training overseas in the financial year 1964–65, including Commonwealth Education Co-operation (C.E.C.) is estimated at over £16½ million, of which approximately £12½ million relates to the Commonwealth. In addition to this Britain makes substantial contributions to various international agencies, providing aid inter-alia for education; in particular U.N.E.S.C.O., the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and the Special Fund.
A breakdown of the figures and a description of the main components are given below.

Study in Britain
There are over 42,000 Commonwealth students of all categories in Britain (of whom about 1,000 have their costs borne under C.E.C. arrangements). Anticipated expenditure by Britain on training in this country of students from developing Commonwealth countries, other than those here under C.E.C. arrangements is £1·7 million. The large numbers who come to Britain under their own or their Governments' arrangements obtain a substantial indirect benefit by attending institutions supported from public funds.

Teacher Supply
The bulk of British expenditure on the supply of teachers for service in Commonwealth countries is given, not under C.E.C., but under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme (O.S.A.S). The O.S.A.S. provides a substantial proportion of the total emoluments of British expatriate personnel, including teachers, employed by certain Commonwealth Governments both dependent and independent. For 1964–65 the estimated expenditure on British teachers overseas under O.S.A.S. was £1·6 million. A new scheme for teachers for Nigeria has just been introduced, the cost of which is estimated at a total £1 million over the next five years.

Educational Advice
This is not costly but is of central importance. In addition to the "Resident" Advisers of the Ministry of Overseas Develop-

ment assistance is also obtained from the Inspectorate, Institutes of Education, under regional and other programmes of technical assistance, the Inter-University Council, and the Council for Technical Education and Training for Overseas Countries.

Aid for building and equipping teaching institutions overseas
Recent examples include the £5 million grant for educational development in Nigeria; the £1 million grant for the University of Zambia; the £1 million grant to the university of East Africa; grants to establish a new university in the High Commission territories in Southern Africa, a College of Arts and Science as part of the University of the West Indies, in Barbados; the Delhi College of Engineering and Technology where the Ministry of Overseas Development and British industry are jointly providing £650,000 worth of equipment; and technical institutes in Jamaica and Zambia.

The work of the British Council
Although financed from Information monies the work of the British Council forms an important part of the total educational effort, e.g. English Language teaching and teacher training, educational and scientific exchanges, the provision of textbooks and library services, the recruitment of staff for schools and universities overseas, and the welfare of Commonwealth students in Britain.

Foreign and Commonwealth



£


Educational Advice
60,000*


C.D.W., Commonwealth Grants and Equipment
3,510,000


British Council
7,200,000


Teacher Supply under O.S.A.S.
1,600,000


Training in Britain under Regional Programmes
2,470,000


Low Priced Books
150,000


C.E.C
1,850,000



16,840,000

3. Technology
Aid in the field of technology includes communications, architecture, engineering and works, industrial production and marketing, technology and geology.
Estimated expenditure on aid to technology during 1964 is £4,050,000 which includes


expenditure by the British Council in this field. New commitments were entered into in respect of grants, £451,000 and loans, £6,858,000, while expenditure totalling about £18 million was made in 1964 in respect of commitments entered into in previous years. £15,708,000 of this was for loans to Commonwealth countries from the E.C.G.D.
The whole of the new commitments listed in the three fields will take some years to disburse, while all the figures given include only that expenditure which can be specifically identified with agriculture, education and technology.

Technical Experts (Terms of Service)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps have been taken by her Department to verify the cost of living and housing, education and hospital arrangements for United Kingdom engineers and other technical experts who accept temporary secondment from their normal employment for work in newly independent countries with which Great Britain has technical agreements.

Mr. Oram: The terms of service for which I am responsible of people working overseas are kept under constant review by procedures appropriate to each form of employment and where necessary in agreement with the overseas Governments concerned.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that failure to attend to these matters is resulting in certain cases in staff associations and trade unions advising their members not to take up these appointments, which is unfortunate?

Mr. Oram: Where difficulties arise, these staff associations can, through the appropriate channels, make representations to our Ministry, and these representations are taken into account in the reviews which I mentioned.

Tanzania (Retired Zanzibar Officers)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make further representations to the Tanzanian Government that they should honour pension and other commitments to retired engineers and other officers of the former pre-independence Zanzibar administration.

Mr. Oram: The Tanzanian Government have accepted responsibility for pensions and certain other commitments to retired

Zanzibar officers, including those resident in India and Pakistan, who are covered by the Public Officers Agreement. Discussions are proceeding with Tanzania about certain officers not covered by the Agreement.

Mr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one case to which I have drawn his attention no payment has been made at all?

Mr. Oram: I am aware of the particular case which my hon. Friend has in mind and I am glad to say that we have recently learned that the Tanzanian Government have authorised the payment of Mr. Kased's pension, arrears of pension, and commuted pension gratuity.

Civil Service Pensions (Ghana Income Tax)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many pensioners there are of the old Colonial or Overseas Civil Service living in Great Britain whose pensions do not attract United Kingdom Income Tax but now attract Ghana Income Tax.

Mr. Oram: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Tilney: Does not this show that the Minister is out of touch with servants and past servants of the Crown, and is not this very reprehensible?

Mr. Oram: It does not show anything of the kind. The fact is that the tax position of each pensioner depends on his total income, and not simply on his pension. The Ministry does not know, and has no right to inquire into, the total income of each pensioner.

Mr. Tilney: Will the hon. Gentleman take action if facts are given to him by the Overseas Pensioners' Organisation?

Mr. Oram: We have had representations from that organisation, and we are always willing to listen to what it has to say.

Co-operative Enterprises

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the outcome of the discussions which have taken place between her Department and the International Co-operative Alliance on stimulating co-operative enterprises in overseas territories.

Mr. Oram: In its programme for assisting co-operative enterprises overseas, my Department receives very valuable help from our Advisory Committee on Cooperatives under the chairmanship of Lord Peddie, through which we maintain wide and close contact with the British Co-operative movement. This movement in turn is closely associated with the International Co-operative Alliance and it is by this chain of contacts that co-operation is assured. We have had no specific discussions on the subject in question directly with the Alliance.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of encouragement should be given to the development of co-operative organisations in the under-developed areas, not only because this would play a great part in raising standards, because profits are returned to them, but also because, by administering their own affairs, they would realise the importance of democracy?

Mr. Oram: We arc very much aware of both those aspects of the benefits to be derived from co-operative development, which is why we give pride of place to co-operative development, as I have indicated.

Land Settlement Scheme, Kenya

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now announce the recommendations of the Stamp Mission on the future of the Land Settlement scheme in Kenya.

Mrs. Castle: I have received the interim report of the Stamp Mission and I have invited Kenya Ministers to London in the week beginning 26th July for a preliminary exchange of views on it. I hope that these discussions will form a basis for substantive talks later on when I have had the opportunity fully to consider the Mission's final report, which I expect to receive in July. As I indicated in my reply of 23rd February to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the Mission's report will not be published.

Mr. Fisher: In considering the recommendations of the Stamp Mission, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that there are many leaders of opinion, Euro-

pean as well as African, in Kenya now who feel that the future land settlement scheme should be phased out for a somewhat longer period of between eight and ten years and that part of the money we provide should be made available for more productive development of the African areas?

Mrs. Castle: This is a matter which falls within the scope of the Stamp Report, and I shall therefore be considering it.

Mr. Turton: Although the right hon. Lady cannot publish the Report, will she make a statement of policy at an early date after she has considered it?

Mrs. Castle: I think that that would be quite the wrong way of proceeding. Clearly my first step must he to discuss the Report with the Kenya Ministers.

Minister (British Railways Night Ferry)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why she officially requested British Railways to delay the departure of the 10 p.m. night ferry train from Victoria Station on 11th May.

Mrs. Castle: I had arranged to fly to Paris on 12th May for discussions with Ministers in the French Government concerned with aid to developing countries as part of the closer collaboration between our two countries agreed between the Prime Minister and President de Gaulle at their recent talks. But a few days before, I was told by my medical advisers that in view of the treatment for a nasal infection which I was receiving it would be inadvisable for me to travel by air. I therefore asked British Railways whether, in order to avoid my cancelling the visit at short notice, they would be willing to delay the departure of the night ferry on the 11th May for a few minutes so as to enable me to catch it after voting in the 10 o'clock Division that night, and they very kindly arranged to do so.

Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this practice is becoming altogether too prevalent? It happened before, in 1962, when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was very critical of one of my right hon. Friends for doing the same thing. On the occasion to which the Question relates, a


Southern Region spokesman is reported to have said, "We would not do this for just anybody, but we feel justified in doing it for a member of the Government." Is that really a proper attitude for the right hon. Lady and a publicly-owned undertaking to adopt?

Mrs. Castle: I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I doubt whether he is being very serious about this. To begin with, one cannot say that the practice is becoming prevalent when, as the hon. Gentleman said, the last occasion was June, 1962, when the Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, as he then was, asked for a train to be held up for half an hour when he was returning to London from his holiday.
Obviously when deciding whether to do this British Railways must consider the urgency of the business of the Minister concerned, and also whether there is likely to be any inconvenience to passengers. They were satisfied in this case that there would be none, and indeed the train arrived on time both at Dover and at Paris.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly complaining about snooping by Government officials and others into the affairs of individuals? Is it not carrying it a little too far when a Member makes an attack of this kind?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is responsible for Overseas Development, not for expressing an opinion about Questions asked from the other side.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I understood that the Question concerned British Railways being officially requested to delay the departure of the 10 p.m. ferry from Victoria Station on 11th May. It was arising from that Question that I put my supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question was out of order for the reason that I have given. The Minister's stopping of the train was done in her official capacity. That was the difference.

Overseas Investment (Insurance)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, as a considerable part of Great Britain's current invest-

ment in developing countries is private investment, what further action she will take to create conditions favourable to the increase of such investment; and what progress has been made in reaching agreement with developing countries on bilateral or multilateral codes for the insurance of overseas investment against political risks.

Mr. John Harvey: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government since October, 1964, to facilitate the adoption of proposals initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for a multilateral investment insurance scheme; and on how many occasions since October, 1964, this matter has been discussed with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mrs. Castle: Her Majesty's Government are taking a full part in the discussions in the O.E.C.D. on a multilateral scheme for the insurance of overseas investment which we shall also be able to discuss with developing countries in the United Nations Trade and Development Board later this year. As I hope the whole House will recognise, the United Kingdom's balance of payments position limits the scope at present for measures to increase private investment overseas.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome this statement, which is a reversal of the previous approach to insurance of this sort, but I hope that the Minister will press on with these arrangements, because American experience in this matter has been of considerable assistance to private investment from America in overseas territories.

Mrs. Castle: I should point out that the O.E.C.D. Council has not yet approved this scheme, and is to be asked to pass it to the World Bank for further study. We have no objection in principle to the establishment of a scheme of this sort in O.E.C.D., but the question whether we would accede to it must necessarily depend upon its exact terms and our own economic position.

Mr. Tilney: Does the right hon. Lady consider that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing everything he can to assist her in achieving these very desirable aims?

Mrs. Castle: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are at one in desiring to help the developing countries in every way possible, within the limits of our own resources.

Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that private investment in developing countries was declining year by year under the previous Administration, and that nothing was done to reverse this trend? Is she further aware that in the last few years, taking into account the new money invested in under-developed countries, the total sum was negligible?

Mrs. Castle: It is true that private investment in the developing countries has been declining in certain cases. It is further proof of the basic need of these countries for overseas aid in order to enable them to create the necessary economic conditions for development.

Mr. R. Carr: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that in saying what she has just said she is going right across the views of the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D., in Paris, which lays great stress upon the need and value of private investment and the need to take steps to encourage it? Does not the very fact that it is declining prove that there is need to encourage it, and not to put further barriers in its way? [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but is it not a fact that when something is declining there is a case for taking measures to stimulate it rather than stop it?

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I was conveying facts to the House when I stated that private investment in developing countries has been declining. That does not cut across anybody's view. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that if we have a balance of payments problem and limited resources and cannot extend aid and private investment as much as we would like, we must get our priorities right, and the priority must be aid which lays the foundations upon which all other economic development takes place.

Mr. R. Carr: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is a very important matter to the development of the economies of these countries and that the D.A.C. in Paris

takes the view that private investment is, in its way, as important as public aid?

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill. I have never denied that private investment has a part to play, but we must decide which is right within the context of our own balance of payment difficulties.

Agricultural Research

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the need of developing countries to increase agricultural productivity, what steps she is taking to help them in agricultural research, including research into the improvement of basic agricultural techniques of peasant farmers and research into the processing of their agricultural products and into alternative uses for those products, and to help in the training of agricultural extension workers in techniques of communication which have proved successful in agricultural communities at similar stages of development elsewhere in the world.

Mrs. Castle: In the current year British aid expenditure directed towards these objectives is running at about £1,400,000 and supports not only extensive research in Britain on the processing and protection of tropical crops but also helps a diversity of overseas institutions engaged on the problems mentioned in the question.

Sir G. Sinclair: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. What steps is she taking to maintain a service of overseas agriculture officers, and what steps is she taking to encourage agricultural institutions in this country to keep two or three staff surplus to establishment for secondment to service with institutions overseas?

Mrs. Castle: If we receive requests from the Governments of developing countries for assistance in agriculture along the lines suggested by the hon. Member we take every possible step to meet their requirements. We are considering the second point that the hon. Member raised.

Sir F. Bennett: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the question of the storage of agricultural products after


growth and after crops has been appreciated within this programme, since many agricultural products obtained from tropical countries run to waste long before they are consumed?

Mrs. Castle: This is a subject which will fall within the scope of the work of the research institutions that we are supporting.

Mr. James Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all these questions merely confirm her view that the basic need of these territories is public investment, underpinning their economies?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir.

Financial Aid

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she takes, when giving financial aid to overseas countries, to ascertain the ways in which the money will be spent.

Mrs. Castle: Our financial aid is normally given only after full discussions with the recipient Government, and is related, wherever possible, to the fulfilment of their development plans.

Mr. Dempsey: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the granting of this State aid influences the policies of these territories? Is she aware that many social services are totally inadequate in these countries? Can she state that in granting aid to these territories we have some influence as to how the aid will be spent, so that we can ensure that it is spent on essential services?

Mrs. Castle: Our attitude is that the use of aid should be jointly decided and discussed between us and the receiving Governments. It must be a partnership. Clearly we seek to help these countries to have good development plans, in which the social services will have an important part, and then we fit our aid into those development plans.

Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Lady say what action she takes to assess the way in which the Government receiving the aid use their resources which they levy from their own taxpayers? Is she aware that one of the main reasons for the regrettable decline in private investment overseas in recent years has been

the extremely ill-conceived and ill-advised policies which have been adopted by the developing countries under the peculiar advice of gentlemen who are now advising her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mrs. Castle: In estimating the need for aid in a country these alternative sources of finance are taken into consideration.

Mr. David Steel: What account has the Minister taken of giving increased aid to developing countries in kind as well as in cash? Is she having any discussions with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the processing of agricultural surpluses and their export in a form acceptable to many countries where there is a shortage of food?

Mrs. Castle: As my hon. Friend said earlier, we play our part in the world food programme. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that we are not a country with agricultural surpluses to dispense.

Caribbean Area

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has now made to co-ordinate and extend the work of her Department in the Caribbean area.

Mrs. Castle: I am setting up a permanent advisory unit to be known as the Development Division of my Ministry in the Caribbean. It will give advice on technical and economic questions in connection with our aid programmes; and its staff will also be available to advise on development matters generally in the area. As its knowledge and experience of local conditions grow our aid and technical assistance should be of progressively greater value. Its first responsibilities will be in relation to the British dependent territories.

Mr. Chapman: Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of both sides of the House, I am sure, for this absolutely first-class decision, which is streets ahead of anything which has been done in this respect before? Secondly, could she say where the headquarters of the mission will be, what kind of people are members of it and whether the mission will be co-ordinating plans of the area for submission to bodies like the International Development Authority?

Mrs. Castle: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have been pressed in the House to strengthen our representation overseas and this is an important step in that direction, which I am glad to be able to announce. With regard to the other points, I am afraid that the location of the division is still under consideration. It will be a small specialist unit with about half a dozen expert advisers on subjects such as development planning, finance, agriculture and other forms of expertise. Certainly, its purpose will be to give every possible help to the countries in the area in preparing their plans and in helping them to submit them to bodies which might provide finance.

Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: While congratulating the right hon. Lady on what she has set up, I am sure that she will agree that the Caribbean, especially the British islands, are knee-deep in plans which have not been fulfilled, and that what is needed is some application of money and encouragement to private enterprise to invest in these areas. Will she agree that, in the past and today, planning is not what is needed? It is money and private enterprise.

Mrs. Castle: I cannot agree with the right hon. Member that there has been planning of the appropriate type to the extent needed in the areas. I think that there is a great gap there and, before the question of finance or in what form it should come arises, we must get the basic expertise at the disposal of these countries.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the plans being promulgated and going forward in the Bahamas and Bermuda to co-ordinate the administration of justice there and to form a joint court of appeal for those islands? What assistance is she giving to that?

Mrs. Castle: I am afraid that that does not rank as development aid.

Mr. R. Carr: Would the right hon. Lady accept our congratulations on this decision? Is it intended to develop this office rather on the pattern of the existing Middle East Development Division? Has she in mind the possibility of associating other Commonwealth countries with this office, so that it might, in due course,

become a Commonwealth development office?

Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Yes, it is our experience with the Middle East Development Division and the good work which it has done which has led us to extend this to the Caribbean. I hope eventually to be able to extend it to other regions as well. On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think that, at this stage, we shall get it launched on our own basis, though, of course, we shall seek every opportunity to encourage Commonwealth help to go into that area.

Zambia (Technical Assistance)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what technical assistance she has offered to the Government of Zambia.

Mrs. Castle: When Zambia became independent, the British Government offered to continue to make available technical assistance over a wide field within the limits of our financial and other resources.
Our current programme includes the provision of expert advisers, teachers, topographical and geological surveys, training in Britain for Zambians, and assistance under the Overseas Surveys Aid Scheme. We also support the sending of a number of graduate and other volunteers, and contribute to scientific research in the area. During my recent visit Zambian Ministers made clear to me the value they attach to the provision by Britain of experts in so many fields of whom there are over 1,700.

Mrs. Williams: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely encouraging reply, especially in view of the fact that for many years the production of graduates and secondary school leavers for Zambia has been appallingly low, below the potential of the country? Would she say a word about whether we are able to give any help for teacher training in these territories?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. We are undertaking teacher training in the area. I am afraid that I do not have the exact figures with me, but I shall be glad to let my hon. Friend have the precise


details. I agree with her that this is a very important part of technical assistance.

Sir R. Thompson: Do the right hon. Lady's proposals include any assistance for the railway that Zambia is very anxious to build to an east coast port?

Mrs. Castle: I discussed this matter with Zambian Ministers during my recent visit. I know their interest in the subject, but I could not hold out any prospect of British help at this time.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does the right hon. Lady intend to increase this figure of 1,700 technical helpers? Is that an upper limit, and, if not, when will the extra help be provided?

Mrs. Castle: We have not set an upper limit of figures because we know how great are Zambia's needs, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. We are doing our utmost to meet the innumerable requests from Zambia for more experts. We shall have to take steps which we now have under consideration to strengthen the recruitment in this country of the people who are wanted, and I hope to be able to announce something about that shortly.

Development Aid (Local Costs)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a contribution to local costs where an under-developed country will otherwise be unable to use development aid funds effectively.

Mrs. Castle: This is already done in a large number of cases although we naturally limit this form of aid mainly to cases of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mrs. Williams: In view of the fact that this is a form of aid which puts the least possible pressure on our balance of payments, especially in the sterling area, while producing the maximum effect locally, will my right hon. Friend consider this very favourably when there is an opportunity for local resources to be used more fully in giving development aid, particularly local resources of manpower, as well as other forms of local resources?

Mrs. Castle: We are one of the donor countries which are most generous in this respect. We are so because we appreciate that, in giving finance for development schemes, it is not enough to give it for the import content. One must also take steps to meet the local costs. We wish that other donor countries would follow us in this respect and thus share the burden of what is, in effect, a form of untied aid.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What form of control does the right hon. Lady keep over the funds to see that they are not wasted? Does she have a veto if she does not approve of the way in which they are used?

Mrs. Castle: When requests are made to us for aid, we get round the table with the Ministers of the country concerned, discuss their development plans and what approaches seem most helpful in those plans and then allocate our aid on the basis of these specific schemes.

Students (Industrial Training)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress she has made in her study of ways of improving the arrangements for providing practical training in industry for students who come to Great Britain from overseas to take engineering or other similar courses in technical colleges.

Mr. Oram: I hope that we shall be able to provide, through the industrial training boards, more opportunities for overseas students and trainees to be trained in British industry, including those who are taking engineering or other similar courses in technical colleges. Discussions with the industrial training boards are in progress.

Mr. Carr: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to use the power which is incorporated in the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to make grants to industrial companies in return for them taking overseas trainees?

Mr. Oram: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the powers contained in Section 14 of that Act. It has not been necessary to exercise those powers so far, and we are not anxious to use them, but we are certainly prepared to do so if it should be necessary.

Public Administration and Economic Planning

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress she has made in her study of how Great Britain can best provide for high-level training and study in the field of public administration and economic planning.

Mrs. Castle: Good progress has been made, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I attach much importance to this project and I will make an announcement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Carr: Is the Minister aware that discussions were well advanced at least a year ago regarding the establishment of a special institute in this country for this purpose with a certain university? Is it not rather disappointing that as much as a year later she cannot say anything more definite?

Mrs. Castle: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that endless discussions went on under the former Government, but no policy decisions were taken. I hope to be able to announce a policy decision soon.

Mr. Carr: Is the Minister aware that, as so often, she is quite incorrect about this? Is she aware that this matter was put to Commonwealth countries months ago—indeed, about a year ago—and that, while I would not blame her for this, some of the delay may have occurred in waiting for replies from Commonwealth countries? Would she agree that the delay has not been due to the lack of a decision being taken a year ago?

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The proposal which I thought he had in mind, and which certainly I had in mind, was for the provision of facilities in this country. That is a matter for decision by Her Majesty's Government, who are now in process of taking that decision.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the first-class college of this nature in Paris which caters for that country's overseas students? Will she look at the work that is done in that country in this sphere?

Mrs. Castle: I am aware of the work that is being done in other countries, not only in Paris, but also in The Hague, which I recently visited. There is a special training institution there. I think that the proposals which we have in mind will do very great credit to this country and will be at least as good as those in other countries.

Mr. Hornby: Is not the Minister in a position to make any reference to any action that may be taken following the reference made to this subject in the last communiqué arising out of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference a year ago?

Mrs. Castle: The action which I have taken has arisen from my own approach to this problem since taking over this bring it to fruition in a remarkably rapid Ministry. I think that I am going to time.

O.E.C.D. (Fiscal Committee's Report)

Mr. John Harvey: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Report, Tax Incentives in Capital-Exporting Countries for Private Investment in Developing Countries, produced by a special working group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's fiscal committee.

Mrs. Castle: None, Sir. This Report of the Fiscal Committee, on which we are of course represented, was addressed to the Development Assistance Committee and then to the Council of the O.E.C.D. and not to member Governments at this stage.

Mr. Harvey: Would the right hon. Lady say whether this means that Her Majesty's Government have played no constructive part in formulating these proposals? Does she accept that private enterprise has an important part to play and that it must play an important part in aiding the developing countries?

Mrs. Castle: We have covered the last point of that supplementary question endlessly in preceding Questions. The answer to the first part is that of course our representatives play their full part in D.A.C., but these proposals have not yet been put to Governments.

Tanzania (Zanzibar Pensions and Compensation Payments)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make it a condition of further aid to Tanzania that adequate compensation shall be paid to all British subjects who lost their possessions during civil disturbances since Zanzibar's independence and that pension commitments to expatriate officers formerly serving in Zanzibar shall be honoured in full.

Mr. Oram: The Tanzania Government have agreed to assume responsibility for paying the pensions of all officers entitled under the Zanzibar Public Officers Agreement and, except for special cases which are being urgently considered, arrangements are already in train for disbursement of the amounts due. With regard to compensation for loss of property, payments have been made to British former officials in Zanzibar. I understand that claims from a small number of non-officials are under consideration by the Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Goodhart: Before aid to Zanzibar is increased will the Minister ensure that all the cases are settled satisfactorily? Does she realise that the whole concept of overseas aid is damaged if we do not stand up for the rights of those who have devoted their careers to helping development in overseas countries?

Mr. Oram: I think that my original Answer indicated that considerable progress has been made in this sphere. I do not think that it would be appropriate, following this success, to start making threats of the kind the hon. Gentleman invites me to make.

Mr. Paget: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this Question involves two quite different matters; that riot damage may be an acceptable risk in a high-profit area but that compensation to officials who have given their whole lives to a territory ought to have a first priority?

Mr. Oram: We are fully aware of the needs of the officers who have served and I think that we are making commendable progress in satisfying their needs.

EAST OF SUEZ

Mr. Neil Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's east of Suez rôle.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to reduce the economic burden of commitments east of Suez.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): It is our policy to ensure that we have the necessary strength to be able to fulfil our commitments to our Commonwealth partners, our allies, and to undertake any measures which will be necessary for the purpose of the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations. It will be one of the principal objectives of the review of defence rôles and strengths to ensure that we are able to do this in the area east of Suez, as in other areas, at the minimum cost in terms of money and physical resources.

Mr. Marten: As we shall soon have to regard China as the fifth nuclear Power, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any progress on the proposition of, I think, last December, that India should be given a nuclear guarantee? Would he agree that if we did use our nuclear deterrent in this way it would save India the possibility of developing her own nuclear deterrent and thereby allow her to use her resources for needful purposes?

The Prime Minister: As to the first part of that supplementary question, if I am successful in catching your eye in the debate which is scheduled for later today, Mr. Speaker, I will have a word or two to say on that. There is not as yet a great deal of progress to report. On the second part, I think that we all agree that it would be disastrous if India and other countries felt impelled to develop their own nuclear resources. This is a question of providing international safeguards or guarantees so that India or, indeed, any other country in the area, does not feel so impelled.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directly attributable cost of our forces east of Suez is £320 million a year and that this excludes overheads, which, if added, would produce a figure


hardly less than £500 million a year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the present economic situation this high level of expenditure is totally unacceptable? Will he prepare plans for a run-down of expenditure in this area?

The Prime Minister: I have said that one of the main purposes of the review of defence rôles is that we should be able to discharge our responsibilities with the minimum cost both in terms of money and physical resources. This review is not an easy task, but it is being related to more tolerable costs, in terms of money and physical resources, than would have been involved with the planned increase in defence expenditure in this and in other areas if we had not taken radical action.

Mr. William Yates: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people who are suspicious that the Labour Party's rôle east of Suez, particularly in supporting the actions in Vietnam, is closely connected with support which is given to the sterling market?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is always elliptic, but I am not sure what he was trying to get at there. Perhaps he will allow me to point out to him that we have no troops in Vietnam.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to his hon. Friend seemed to indicate that we were going to maintain the same defence rôle east of Suez indefinitely, and that all that he could do was to try to ensure some reductions of expenditure by making economies? Is he really saying that the commitments to, our Commonwealth partners and allies east of Suez are immutable and fixed for all time? Would he not consider trying to persuade our partners in the Western Alliance to play a bigger part in that part of the world than they have played hitherto?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear my first answer I referred to the review of defence rôles—not merely to defence costs, but to the defence rôles we have and the best way in which those rôles or their objectives can be discharged. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly one which should be pursued and

which will be pursued. At the moment we have accumulated a total of rôles, a total of commitments, a total of in-built costs adding up to the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned, which are far beyond the reasonable economic capacity of the country. This is the purpose of the review.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister what is his policy on the future place of nuclear weapons in Great Britain's military strategy; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself in the defence debates of 16th and 17th December and of 3rd and 4th March.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on these benches look forward to the time when Britain will no longer depend at all on nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have made it clear in debate, and I should be glad to make it clear on another occasion, that it is our purpose to internationalise the use of nuclear weapons until we can get a world disarmament agreement getting rid of them altogether.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Whatever the future may hold, is it not a fact that the nuclear situation with regard to our armaments is exactly the same as it was a year ago, and may I congratulate the Prime Minister on that?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Unlike a year ago, when the whole of our nuclear defence policy was based on an electoral pretence, when everything the right hon. Gentleman said on this was systematically misleading the country as to the true facts, the situation today is that we have made proposals for internationalising nuclear weapons on the only basis that makes sense—interdependence.

Mr. Mendelson: In the more limited field of N.A.T.O. strategy in Europe, has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that the Secretary of State for Defence


is at this moment putting forward a plan for N.A.T.O. which would increase our immediate need to use tactical nuclear weapons in the case of any conflict? Is not this policy in complete contradiction to the policy of the Labour Party? Is it not also true that it would be much better, though there might be a desire to save currency by reducing troops there, not to save currency at the expense of making the use of tactical nuclear weapons necessary earlier than was planned?

The Prime Minister: It is quite clear that my hon. Friend, despite his very high degree of homework on reading newspaper reports, has totally misunderstood what my right hon. Friend has said in Paris. So far from increasing the dependence on nuclear weapons, we are asking for a new and up-to-date review of what has now become a totally out-of-date situation in respect of both conventional and nuclear weapons in the N.A.T.O. Alliance.

SHIPPING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant the Minister of Shipping a separate Department and raise his status to Cabinet level.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The present arrangements, whereby responsibility for shipping rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, assisted by a Minister of State specially appointed for the purpose, are working well and I see no reason to change them.

Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to reflect in any way on the present Minister, but, in view of the substantial contributions of both British shipbuilding and shipping to our foreign trade income, in view of the type of subsidised and ruthless foreign competition we are facing, and in view of the national importance of both these industries in peace and war, does not the Prime Minister feel that, as with aviation for some time in the past, the interests of these industries would be best served by having a separate Ministry with a Minister of Cabinet status in charge?

The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what was in the preamble of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, though not with the conclusion which he draws from it. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, have taken encouragement from the fact that, as a result of the measures we introduced in January for interest rates in respect of export orders, the export orders of the shipbuilding industry in the first quarter of this year were double the export orders received for the same quarter of last year and that the total tonnage placed in British shipyards in the first quarter of this year is the highest for any first quarter of the year since the immediate post-Suez shipbuilding boom.

Mr. Woodburn: Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable tribute in this morning's Daily Express attributing this tremendous increase entirely to the very sensible arrangement between the Government and private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: In fact it was still true, even before the Daily Express printed it. This has been a remarkable reaction, perhaps more than any of us expected, to the success of the new provision for export credits in respect of shipbuilding which I remember that one or two right hon. Members opposite dismissed as meaningless when we introduced them.

Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of the Prime Minister's Answer and his declared satisfaction with what the Government have continued to contribute to what we did in the past, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I should now be right in assuming that all that the shipping and shipbuilding interests want, and which is embodied in Amendments to the Finance Bill, will be acceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that we can see them accepted when we move the Amendments to the Finance Bill accordingly?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is always very persuasive. I am glad that it was she and not her own Front Bench who called attention to the shipbuilding measures of two years ago in 1963. The difference is that we have now introduced something of help to the shipbuilding industry, especially in relation to shipbuilding exports. Right hon. Members


opposite introduced once-for-all financial aid to the shipbuilding industry.

Dame Irene Ward: Jolly good it was, too.

The Prime Minister: Yes, very nice, and neatly timed to last for 12 months ending in the June before the last General Election.

Mr. Hogg: Will not the Prime Minister acknowledge more candidly that the purpose of that action in 1963 was to break the cycle created by the loss of shipping during the war and to anticipate the natural recurrence of orders at an interval of 20 years from that period? Does net the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it achieved its object?

The Prime Minister: It did not achieve its object in fact. The plain fact about this situation is that it was introduced in June, 1963, and was designed to last for 12 months till June, 1964, which was the time when right hon. Members opposite at that time hoped they might be able to stage a General Election.

HOUSE OF LORDS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation scheduling the minimum requisite number of persons to be made members of the Upper House with full voting rights on the coming into force of the Act, in order to redress the present political imbalance.

The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend on 13th April, I would not feel it right to propose any change in the constitutional position without first seeking an electoral mandate.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend should not drag his feet like that. May I hasten to declare my singular lack of interest? Since my right hon. Friend said on another occasion that there was no lack of aspirants in our own movement for elevation to the other place, will he give an assurance that their rather queer ambitions will be satisfied if the occasion should arise?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember qualifying my answer in that way. I think that the answer, which was to a

supplementary question, referred to hon. Members who belong to the party opposite, who I would not consider part of our movement.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND COMMON MARKET

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made with his plans for establishing closer links between the European Free Trade Association and the Common Market.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the recent Ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association in Vienna.

The Prime Minister: At Vienna we reached unanimous agreement in the European Free Trade Association on the desirability of Ministerial meetings to promote closer economic co-operation in Europe. The European Free Trade Association Council will now examine and report to Ministers at Copenhagen in October what procedural arrangements for contacts between the two groups might be considered and what subjects might be suggested for discussion. With permission, I will circulate the text of the Vienna communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome his endorsement of the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) for preferential tariff reduction between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be deterred from pursuing this idea by any objections from third countries. Will he give priority to rebuilding this country's bridges with E.F.T.A. by removing the import surcharge?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the initiative of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) many years ago, before the Treaty of Rome, I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, though the conditions are entirely different now. That broke down, as many on both sides of the House said, because it was conceived as being an attempt to stop the Treaty of Rome from being signed and to


stop the Common Market from being formed, whereas this proposal accepts and welcomes the existence of the Common Market and is trying to bring the two sides more closely together. There is this difference. In fact the hon. Gentleman must recognise that from the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations in 1963 right up to last October no initiative whatever had been taken. This initiative, limited though it must be, has been welcomed. We had the full support of our E.F.T.A. colleagues, and I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, that it will lead to constructive results.

Mr. Fell: If the Prime Minister is thinking about some sort of approach to the Common Market countries, will he attempt to get agreement with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on the sort of approach that should be made?

The Prime Minister: That would really be a change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I stressed to the E.F.T.A. meeting last week what I am sure most hon. and right hon. Members would have wished me to stress and I made it absolutely plain that we could not envisage any arrangement, whether in direct relations with the Common Market, or through E.F.T.A.E.E.C. arrangements, that would prejudice our ability to go on importing foodstuffs from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is reported to have said in Vienna that if we are not able to build bridges we will dig a tunnel? Could he explain what distinction he makes between those alternatives?

The Prime Minister: I was asked at a Press conference, "What happens if you do not build a bridge?" I said, "We will dig a tunnel." I thought that was a perfectly fair answer which would commend itself to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). We all have our different tastes in metaphor. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has. What I was trying to say was that we are going to try and get understandings and agreements between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. as a result of the suggested high-level talks between Governments who are members of these two organisations. In

addition, remembering that we have these high tariff walls, it will be our purpose as a British Government—and I am sure that it is true about many of our partners—to try and work out direct bilateral arrangements, such as we have worked out with France and other countries at the moment on joint aviation projects.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the serious economic consequences which must inevitably flow from widespread economic division between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market, is my right hon. Friend aware that most people warmly support the proposal which he has made as a means towards securing a measure of economic co-operation between the two sides in Europe?

The Prime Minister: It was precisely because of our anxiety about the results, not only for economic affairs but for Europe generally, of this hardening of the two tariff blocs that we took the initiative we did. I was very glad to find that we had the support of all our E.F.T.A. partners in taking this initiative. The danger which many of us foresee if this continues and nothing is done about it is that there will be a sort of further hardening of industrial attitudes and there will be a breaking off of selling arrangements and an artificiality in the siting of factories which may make further reconciliation very much harder when the time comes for a move forward.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Can the Prime Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) about the import surcharge? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the initiative taken with the full support of our E.F.T.A. partners. Is not it right that the support which we received from our E.F.T.A. partners was, to say the least, lukewarm? Is not it clear that there is little likelihood that they will show any real enthusiasm for such a British initiative while the import surcharge remains in force and that they are still suspicious of British intentions and motives? Has the Prime Minister any more immediate proposals to help to restore the confidence of E.F.T.A. in Britain?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and learned Member for Conway (Mr. Peter Thomas).
The support of our E.F.T.A. partners on this question was not lukewarm. It was extremely enthusiastic. There was just a certain amount of doubt on the part of two countries. They did not want a further disappointment, but they felt that in this situation with our plans for strengthening E.F.T.A., unlike the previous negotiations on the Common Market, we would be negotiating from strength—this was a phrase very much used—which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was certainly not doing a year or two ago.
With regard to the import surcharges, of course our E.F.T.A. partners want to see these charges come off as quickly as we can take them off, and so do we. We repeat that we shall take them off at the earliest moment that it is safe to do so, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unlike some of his right hon. Friends, will not dissociate himself from the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on import surcharges as representing his diagnosis and his remedies.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister correct himself on two points? How can he possibly suggest that he is prepared to negotiate from a position of strength when he has imposed the surcharges and has the additional indebtedness from the International Monetary Fund which he is now carrying? Secondly, to say that there was no initiative taken after the break-up of European negotiations in Brussels is completely wrong. The initiative was taken, first of all, to strengthen E.F.T.A. at the Lisbon Conference which set the course for E.F.T.A. and the final abolition of its tariffs internally. Secondly, there was the recreation of Western European Union in which economic affairs were to be discussed, of which E.F.T.A. was kept fully informed—and E.F.T.A. created its own contacts with Brussels.

The Prime Minister: The reason why I said that in this case we shall be negotiating from strength is that E.F.T.A. has got strong and will get stronger. That was not the case when the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept such intolerable terms in his own negotiations. As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to initiatives after January,

1963, that of course was the work of the W.E.U., but it did not quite cover the whole work of E.F.T.A., as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. It excluded the E.F.T.A. neutrals. The difficulty right through—and it was difficult to get reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman during the talks until the last moment—was that at the time when he negotiated there was no assurance that the position of the E.F.T.A. neutrals would be looked after. Certainly we welcomed any steps taken through Lisbon and elsewhere to strengthen E.F.T.A., but that is not the same as saying that the initiative was taken to bring E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. closer together.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heath: Is it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House wants to debate the matter some time that is for the House, but in my view we must get on.

Mr. Steele: On a point of order. Does not this situation recall to the House that the Committee on Procedure has made suggestions to the House about Questions and particularly about the number of Front Benchers who speak and rise at Question Time? Has not the Committee referred to this and made recommendations to the House? Could not you use your influence, Mr. Speaker, with the usual channels to have this point debated and have some guidance given?

Mr. Speaker: Whether the House likes to debate arrangements for business is not a matter for me.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order. Is not it also correct, following what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has just said, that if the Prime Minister is going to make such lengthy answers impugning the actions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be allowed to hear what is being said.

Mr. Heath: —of former Ministers at international negotiations—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be allowed to hear the words which are addressed to me.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West raised a question about Front Benchers being allowed to ask questions. My point is that if the Prime Minister is going to make lengthy answers in which he imputes motives and actions to former Ministers in international negotiations, ought we not to have an opportunity of questioning the right hon. Gentleman about it?

Mr. Speaker: The idea of not having further Front Bench questions is in order that more questions from back benchers may have an answer. As for imputing bad motives to other people, I deprecate any use of Question Time for the purpose, because it occupies time, and even people on the Front Bench tend to answer back. Let us get on.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us have been very patient during Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.]—unduly patient and very tolerant. I wish to make a submission to you on a point of order, as to whether right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench are to be privileged to raise a great number of supplementary questions while hon. and right hon. Members on this side are not so permitted?

Mr. Speaker: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's restraint during Question Time, for which I am grateful. But I do not depart in any circumstances from the idea that it must be left to the Chair to do its best to call supplementary questions rightly.

Following is the communiqué:

"Vienna, May 24, 1965.

E.F.T.A. COUNCIL MINISTERIAL MEETING, VIENNA MAY 24, 1965.

The E.F.T.A. Council met at Ministerial level in Vienna on 24th May 1965. Dr. Fritz Bock, Federal Minister for Trade and Reconstruction was in the chair. Delegations of five member countries were led by their Prime Ministers. Dr. Klaus, the Federal Chancellor, welcomed the delegates.

Ministers examined the situation as it exists today in Europe, after five years of successful development of E.F.T.A. They discussed the likely consequences for Europe of the deepening division resulting from the continued separate evolution of E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. A heavy responsibility rested on the governments to seek to ensure closer cooperation between E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. and to pursue such policies as would promote to the greatest

extent possible the growth of trade, the expansion of their economies and the welfare of all the peoples of Western Europe.

Ministers considered that a hardening of the division could only be arrested by new initiatives. They firmly believed that steps could and should be taken to bring about closer and more continuous contact between the two groups, in order to facilitate the removal of trade barriers and the promotion of closer economic cooperation in Europe, which are the fundamental objectives of E.F.T.A. They agreed that it would be desirable to seek to arrange meetings at Ministerial level between the two groups at the earlier opportunity which offered prospects of a fruitful result.

Ministers therefore decided that the Council should be charged with the task of recommending what procedural arrangements might best facilitate contacts between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., and what substantive issues of policy might be the subjects of discussion between them, and that this report should be submitted to the Ministerial Council of E.F.T.A. at its meeting in Copenhagen in October with a view to a meeting between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. as soon as possible thereafter.

Ministers then considered a number of substantive ideas for increasing and strengthening cooperation between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., and for coordinating where practicable their policies in relation to developments of special economic concern to the two groups. These ideas include possible ways of reducing obstructions to freer trade between the two groups, functional collaboration in fields of research and development and the harmonization throughout Europe of regulations and standards important for the manufacture and movement of goods.

Ministers again stressed the paramount importance they attach to a successful outcome to the Kennedy Round as the principle means for the lowering of barriers to trade, both world wide and in Europe. They confirmed the intention of all the member countries of E.F.T.A. to continue to work towards its success. Furthermore, Ministers stressed their determination to cooperate with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Ministers reaffirmed their determination to intensify cooperation within E.F.T.A., in order to ensure the prosperity of its own members and to offer the best prospect of achieving a satisfactory basis for closer collaboration between the Association and the European Economic Community. The transitional period of the Association would end in a year and a half. They agreed that member countries should ensure that all necessary action was in train to secure that the Association would function to the fullest advantage of all of them, when the stage of full freedom of trade provided for in the convention was reached. They accordingly instructed the Council at Official level to examine the further progress to be made in E.F.T.A. with this in view and to report to them in time for their next meeting. The report would deal in the first place with the internal arrangements of

E.F.T.A,. including the Economic Development Committee, with due regard to the objectives of the Association as set out in Article 2, and Articles 22 and 27. Secondly the report would cover the external aspect of E.F.T.A. activities, taking into account the arrangements proposed for joint discussions with the E.E.C.

Thirdly the Council were instructed to review the institutional arrangements of E.F.T.A.

Ministers made it clear that a vital step in the consolidation of E.F.T.A. was the elimination of the United Kingdom import charge. They noted the continued strengthening of the balance of payments of the United Kingdom, and welcomed the statement of the British Prime Minister that the surcharge would be removed as soon as possible.

Ministers took note with great regret of the wish expressed by the Secretary General, Mr. Frank Figgures, to leave the Association and return to the British Treasury on 1st November of this year.

They congratulated him on his appointment to an important post and expressed their deep appreciation of the outstanding services which Mr. Figgures has rendered to the Association and the member Governments since he became Secretary General in September 1960.

At the invitation of the Danish Government, the next meeting at Ministerial level will take place in Copenhagen on 28th–29th October, 1965.

SOUTH WALES COALFIELD (DISPUTE)

Mr. Godber: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the position in the dispute in the South Wales coalfield.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I have been informed of this dispute by the National Coal Board, and I am keeping in close touch with development. Meetings are taking place today, and I propose to review the outcome tonight. I would propose to take immediate action if that is necessary.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that the whole House will be glad to note the actions which the Minister is taking, and that we would not wish in any way to embarrass him in the difficult negotiations he is having. I think that the whole House feels that this dispute has grown out of all proportion to the causes which originated it and that we all wish the right hon. Gentleman well in solving it.

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL (GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I should like to make a short statement on procedure.
I propose to table today Amendments to certain of the provisions in the Finance Bill dealing with Corporation Tax. These will appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow.
For the convenience of hon. Members, I propose to place copies of them in the Vote Office at 7 p.m. today.
At a later stage in the progress of the Bill, I shall table some further Amendments.

Mr. Heath: What crisis has occurred during the last 9½ hours which has brought the Chancellor to the House to make this extraordinary statement, which apparently, he was either unable or unprepared to make when the Committee was reporting Progress as recently as 9½ hours ago? Are we to deduce from the fact that he has adopted this extraordinary procedure that these Amendments concern Clauses with which he expects the Committee to deal tomorrow when it resumes?
If this is so, is it not again a monstrous procedure, when an announcement was made about Corporation Tax seven months ago and the Bill itself got published seven weeks ago, that we should now have an emergency statement from the Chancellor announcing Amendments which, apparently, are to be circulated specially through the Vote Office tonight so that we can debate them tomorrow?

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Is not the right hon. Gentleman raising a matter which is the concern of the Committee dealing with the Finance Bill?

Mr. Speaker: He is asking about the occasion, as I understand it, for the making of a statement in my presence here and now. He was asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree that it was a monstrous procedure.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's irritation after a late night, but he need not feel too alarmed about my statement. I am


trying to meet his convenience and that of the whole Committee, as I have tried to do throughout the progress of the Bill. It seems to me that the more I try to meet the right hon. Gentleman's convenience the more determined he is to find fault. If the right hon. Gentleman would prefer it—I do not think that it would be for his convenience—I could, of course, leave the matter by just putting the Amendments down tonight so that they would appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find it helpful if he sees them tonight, as we are to have a debate on the general introduction of the Corporation Tax tomorrow. He will have more time in which to consider his thoughts about certain matters which he may wish to put before the Committee. That is the whole purpose of what I am doing, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman receives it so ungraciously.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to know what precedent there is for a Minister making a statement in the House to the effect that he proposes to table Amendments to a Finance Bill later in the afternoon. What is the point of doing this, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us some idea of the contents of the Amendments? If he cannot give us an idea of what is in them, will he, please, explain why he has been unable to table them before?
Finally, may I return the compliment to him by informing him that I propose myself to table some Amendments on the Corporation Tax this afternoon?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know why the Liberal Party wants to associate with the Conservatives in their lack of graciousness. I am doing my best to help the Committee in this matter, but it seems to me, from the response my effort is receiving, that I might as well not try and just put the Amendments down on the Notice Paper. I shall try to conduct the Finance Bill through the remainder of its proceedings in a way which is most in the interests of all hon. Members of the Committee when it meets, and that is all I am doing today.

Mr. Heath: Does not the Chancellor realise that we are not complaining that

he is giving three or four extra hours this evening in which to work on these Amendments? What we are complaining about is that he is giving us less than 24 hours' notice of matters which he wants taken into account when we resume tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits and looks at them before he reaches these conclusions. We are to have a general debate tomorrow on the first Clause in the new Part of the Bill upon which we are embarking. I have no doubt that it will be within the competence of the Chair to admit certain general observations which will relate to later Clauses. The Amendments which I am putting down will relate to far later Clauses than we shall then reach; but, to assist the right hon. Gentleman in making his general observations, I am tabling these Amendments today and giving as much advance notice as is possible.

EXPORTS (E.C.G.D. FACILITIES)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
From today, the Export Credits Guarantee Department's premium charges for the insurance of suppliers' credits and financial guarantees for British exports are being cut by 10 per cent. This reduction has been made on the recommendation of the Advisory Council. It will not apply to policies covering external merchanting trade in non-British goods. It is made possible by the healthy state of the Department's finances, and is expected to result in further development of the Department's business.
I am sure that the House will welcome this improvement in the Department's facilities achieved over and above those I announced on 27th January and in the Budget debate on 8th April. The bank guarantees for financing exports were then extended to a wider field, both in terms of size of contract and of length of credit, and the charge for them was halved. The industries affected have welcomed these improvements as a substantial aid: and the shipbuilding industry, in particular, has benefited greatly with a large increase in orders from overseas.
The reduction in premium charges announced today, taken together with the increase in the percentage of normal cover from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent., represents a substantial reduction in E.C.G.D.'s premium charges and therefore, a cheapening of its services to exports.
We are continuing to explore further ways in which the services of the Department can be improved.
I also take this opportunity of announcing the publication of the booklet I previously promised which has been prepared with the help of the British National Export Council and others, giving the names of 400 firms willing to assist smaller firms in export markets. This is being widely circulated through Board of Trade regional export officers and in other ways.

Mr. Barber: The House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of the improved terms which are, as he will agree, a continuation of the cuts in premium charges which were made in 1961 and 1963, and, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, this has been made possible by the healthy state of the Department's finances, which is the result of the encouragement and backing which the E.C.G.D. has had over many years.
Is it not the case that these new terms will be of little avail unless the Government succeed in restoring business confidence and in providing conditions at home which will encourage and not penalise industrial prosperity and efficiency?

Mr. Jay: These terms are a cheapening of the service to exporters and, together with all the other advantages given to exporters in the past six months, I would expect them to increase the great

expansion of exports we have seen during that period.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The President of the Board of Trade mentioned the need to give the shipbuilding industry some encouragement. Will he say whether the measures he has just announced with regard to the shipbuilding industry will help to cope with the very urgent and serious problem of Japanese and Russian competition?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir; these facilities give an advantage to British shipyards in competing for overseas orders. They have been very successful in doing so.

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider using part of the profit which the E.C.G.D. is making to extend similar credit to British ship-owners because of the international type of business which they do so that we do not have the anomalous situation of four large Shell tanker orders worth £20 million going to Japan and Germany while a Norwegian order comes to Britain?

Mr. Jay: We cannot use export credits and the export incentives to assist home purchasers of British goods, but we can, of course, assist them in other ways.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be widely welcomed by exporters throughout the country and that it will be of material assistance to our export drive? Secondly, what will be the true rate of charge as a result of the 10 per cent. cut, and how does this compare with the facilities offered by other banks and institutions?

Mr. Jay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. The rate of charge is of the order of 5s. per £100, and I think that these facilities compare very favourably with those offered by any other country.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Question proposed, That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 14th June.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I realise that an extremely important debate is to take place this afternoon and that the House will be eager to come to it as soon as possible. Therefore, I shall not encroach upon the time of the House for very long, I realise, also, that more even than usually it will be accepted with some incredulity if I were to say that any of us did not wish to adjourn the House as suggested in the Motion. Even if that may not be our feeling at this moment, I think it very probable that there will be a unanimous desire to adjourn the House later in the week.
However, there are certain questions which I wish to put to the Government. I think that it would be wrong for the House to accept the Motion and to depart for the Recess without those questions being put and without some assurances being given about the answers.
First, there is an extremely serious situation in Vietnam. I do not believe that anyone who has studied the reports which have come from both Vietnam itself and Washington in the last few days can doubt that the situation there is perhaps more serious than at any time since the extension of the war a few months ago. There has been no statement by Her Majesty's Government on this matter for some weeks. There have been requests from this side of the House for a statement by the Government on the subject of Vietnam before the Recess. My first question to the Leader of the House, therefore, is whether he will arrange that a statement will be made by the Foreign Secretary to the House before we depart on Friday.
I do not want to use any extreme language, but it is possible that during the next 10 days we could have a development in Vietnam which would make the international situation almost as serious as it was at the time of Cuba. We could have a situation in which Soviet installations were placed around Hanoi and in which a decision had to be made by the American forces as to whether an attack

on those installations should be made. If that were to be the case, whatever view any hon. Member might take of the situation, no one could deny its deep seriousness.
Therefore, the House of Commons should have an up-to-date statement on the Government's estimate of the situation in Vietnam and what representations the Government have made in the last few days and what attitude they may take towards any developments such as I have described in the coming days before the House is able to meet and discuss the matter afresh. That is my first question to the Government—whether we can have a statement on this supremely important international question of Vietnam before the Recess.
The second matter, which, of course, ties up with the issue of Vietnam, although it is a long way away, arises from the events in San Domingo. It may be said that the events in San Domingo are not directly our affair, but they are, because the United Nations is involved, not so much involved as many of us would wish. But this is supremely a question affecting the United Nations and in the Queen's Speech, to which we on this side of the House gave the fullest possible support, the Government opened with a declaration of their loyal and firm allegiance to the Charter of the United Nations.
There are many of us who believe that in San Domingo the Charter of the United Nations has been flagrantly breached by our allies, and there have been critical discussions inside the United Nations Security Council upon this matter, discussions which, in one sense, are unique in the history of the United Nations itself. I therefore hope that we will have a statement by the Government before the Recess on the question of San Domingo and its relation to the position of the United Nations.
We are the more entitled to ask for this statement because we have not yet had a full statement from the Government on the subject, although in the United Nations Her Majesty's Government last week, or the week before, voted for a French resolution on San Domingo when the United States was the only Government in the Security Council unable to vote for the resolution. As I


say, this was a unique development in the history of the United Nations itself.
We should have a statement before the Recess from the Government on their present view of what is happening in San Domingo and whether they believe that further steps can be taken in the Security Council to deal with the situation and what steps they propose to take. There may well be critical discussions inside the Security Council during the week when the House of Commons is in recess and I do not think that there is any member of the Government—certainly, there is no back bencher on this side of the House—who would question our right to ask for such a statement by the Government on a matter affecting the whole future of the United Nations. That, of course, is not only my view. It is the view stated by U Thant, a man who on this side of the House, at any rate, commands universal respect.
The debates inside the Security Council, upon which we have not had a full report to the House and which we have certainly not had an opportunity to debate in the House, the discussions in the Security Council affecting San Domingo and the Charter of the United Nations, touched on the question whether it was right that so much power and authority in San Domingo should be given to the Organisation of American States. Many hon. Members will have read the leading article in The Guardian this morning, which quotes U Thant's comment on this situation:
Recent developments should stimulate some thought by all of us regarding the character of the regional organisations, the nature of their functions and obligations in relation to the responsibility of the U.N. under the Charter.
Hon. Members on this side of the House—I am not speaking for hon. Members opposite; we know how little is their interest in the United Nations—regard support for the United Nations as central to the whole of our doctrine. The British Labour Party gave allegiance to the League of Nations between the wars and has given allegiance to the United Nations ever since its origin, and it regards the maintenance and greater strengthening of the United Nations as the centrepiece of our foreign policy. Therefore, when the Secretary-General of the United Nations speaks of the United

Nations facing the biggest crisis of its whole life, it is right and even essential that we should discuss it in the House.
It would have been much better if there had been a debate on the subject. It was perfectly proper for the Leader of the House to indicate, as he did a few days ago, that if there were to be a debate on this matter, it was proper that the request should come from the Opposition. There has been no request by the Opposition for any discussion of the position of the United Nations, no request by the Opposition for any discussion of San Domingo, no request by the Opposition for any discussion of Vietnam. I am very proud to belong to a party which is much more deeply concerned about these matters than are hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Neil Marten: Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister for a debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Foot: That is perfectly correct. As the hon. Gentleman has said, a request was made by the Opposition for a debate on foreign affairs generally, but there was no specific request, which is what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must listen. There was no specific request from the Opposition for a debate on any of the matters I listed, and, therefore, my statement was absolutely correct.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not absolutely correct. Within the hearing of the House, my right hon. Friend made his request in the context of a specific reference to Vietnam. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that interest in foreign policy in any of its aspects is limited to one side of the House.

Mr. Foot: It is the case that, coupled with the invitation of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the Government to have a debate, there was a request for a debate associated with the question of Vietnam. On that score I apologise, but what I am underlining is that no request has been made to the Government for a debate on these three kindred matters, which affect most of all the future of the United Nations. There has been no demand from the Opposition


for a debate on such subjects. If there had been a demand, they could have got the debate. That is the answer to them. If they had really wanted a debate to take place, the Opposition—

Lady Tweedsmuir: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) once again—in fact, three times—to misrepresent what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? My right hon. Friend not only asked for a debate on foreign affairs generally some weeks ago, but also asked for a debate on the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asked me whether it was in order for an hon. Member to misrepresent something or other. From the point of view of the Chair it is, because hon. Members often take the view that their opponents are misrepresenting them. It would give rise to difficulties if the Chair were to seek to adjudicate upon such matters.

Mr. Foot: I am very grateful to you for rallying so eagerly to my support, Mr. Speaker.
I can put the point in one sentence. If the Opposition had been eager to secure a debate on the United Nations, they could have had it, and everybody in the House knows it. We must give them tutorial classes if they do not know how to get debates in the House. We must tell them how it is done. They should have learned by this time, but perhaps in a year or two they will have picked up the finer points of how an Official Opposition can get debates in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not be too enthused with my support if he departs from matters relevant to the Question before the House.

Mr. Foot: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you are back in your old form.

Mr. Marten: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on, would he withdraw his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? When we ask for a debate on foreign affairs we mean much more than the limited area which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We mean the whole lot, including these things.

Mr. Foot: This is only subsidiary to my argument, but I thought that I had

stated in one sentence, and I will repeat, that if the official Opposition want a debate on anything badly enough, they can always have it. Everyone knows that.
That is not my main concern. My main concern is to invite the Government on these three essential matters, interlocked matters in my opinion, of Vietnam, San Domingo and the present situation of the United Nations, before the Recess to make the fullest possible statement to the House on Government policy in these respects.
A great responsibility rests on the Government to sustain the United Nations at its hour of gravest trial. It would be proper for a statement to be made in the House by the Foreign Secretary or by the Prime Minister before the Recess, for that would make it clear to all the nations assembled in New York how determined the Government are to carry out the pledge which they made in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of this Parliament about the United Nations.
Because I believe that, unhappily, for a variety of reasons, the international situation has taken a serious turn for the worse and because, in view of the appalling tragedy of Vietnam and San Domingo, taken together, for the moment all prospects of a détente or further moves towards a détente between East and West are ruptured, because I believe that only by reasserting the authority of the United Nations will it be possible to escape from some of these difficulties, these matters should be raised on this Motion. The House would have failed in its duty if these requests were not made to the Government at this time.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to intervene between the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his own Front Bench on this matter. Still less do I wish in any way to deter the Government from making the statements for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, if, that is to say, they feel that it would be appropriate in the national interest, or in the interests of the House, to make such statements.
However, whatever conclusion is reached on the Motion—and we on this side of the House certainly do not wish to oppose it—it should be reached in the


light of accurate and not inaccurate considerations such as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to try to import into the discussion.
I intervene simply to say the Opposition have at all times been eager to have a debate on foreign policy which would include both the matters in which the hon. Gentleman is rightly interested, and which I can assure him, awakes an equal interest on this side of the House, and other matters of foreign policy which may be of equal importance and almost equal urgency.
There are only two ways in which an official Opposition can secure a debate, except by co-operation with the Government, at the instance of the Government. One is by using a Supply day and the other is by putting down a Motion of censure. So far as the Motion of censure is concerned, we thought that it would not be in the national interest or in the interests of the House to put down such a Motion on this topic at this juncture. So far as the use of a Supply day is concerned, it will be within the knowledge of the House that during the passage of the Finance Bill we have not had the opportunity. We make no complaint about that, because we recognise that the Bill is unusually long this year.
But it is not correct for the House, upon this Motion, to be supplied with wholly misleading information by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, or for an attempt to be made by him to vent his spleen on the Official Opposition when it is really directed against his own Front Bench.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Before we pass this Motion we must insist that the Leader of the House should give a better reply than he has so far given to requests that have been made to him that the Foreign Secretary should make a comprehensive statement. I asked him two weeks ago if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would make a statement before the Whitsun Adjournment and my right hon. Friend replied that he was discussing the matter with the Foreign Secretary. I raised the same question again last week and I got a reply from my right hon. Friend which did not tell the House anything. He

said he had discussed the matter with the Foreign Secretary and had the impression that the Foreign Secretary would make a statement, but he did not know when.
This matter is all the more urgent now than it was two weeks ago. One of the obervers of the situation, who has been a Member of this House for many years and is an ex-Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gordon Walker, writing in the Scotsman  yesterday, had this to say:
… there is on both sides an ominous creeping escalation. The risk is greater than it was a few months ago that the great powers may exchange direct fire. It would be a major error were the United States to lose patience and extend bombing to Hanoi or industrial centres in North Vietnam. This would be to abandon the vital principle of the use of limited and controlled force in an age of nuclear weapons. There is no American interest to Vietnam that could possibly justify the risk of a major war with China or Russia and the certainty that world opinion would turn against the United States.
Through the play of alliances people are most directly and seriously involved. It is the accepted policy on both sides of the House that the Anglo-American Alliance is one of the main cornerstones of the Foreign policy of the Government and that it is a policy which involves very serious obligations on the part of the people of this country. I believe that Mr. Gordon Walker is right, and if he is it may well be that in the period during our Adjournment very serious developments, which we all hope will not happen, might, nevertheless, take place.
It has been reported that the American Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, regards the situation as grave. The decisions that have to be made within the next fortnight are decisions which concern the direct responsibility of this House for the security and for the safety of Her Majesty's subjects. In this situation I find it difficult to comprehend how any one of my right hon. Friends in the Government could contemplate the House adjourning for the Whitsun Recess without an opportunity for discussion of the international situation.
There have been reports recently about the attitude of the Government to the conflict in Vietnam. Today is not the occasion to go into great detail about that, but it is essential, however, that Parliament should know what efforts the Government are taking at present to avoid


the danger reported by Mr. Gordon Walker in his article. It is surely the accepted policy of the Government that they have an important part to play. I know that in international affairs they can only work with our partners and also with people on the other side of the argument, but it would be negligent on the part of the House of Commons to depart for the Recess without receiving an up-to-date account of what the Government are doing. This ties their responsibility directly to their duty to report to the House. It would be dangerous, not only for the reputation of this particular Government, but equally dangerous for the reputation of Parliament, if we were to allow a situation to arise in which we pass this Motion without a firm assurance that such a statement will, in fact, be made.
There are other equally important factors involved in this situation. The Government has a special responsibility as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference and we have heard of invitiatives made by the Government which we hoped would succeed but which have not been successful. We have heard of a proposal to call a conference on some Far Eastern problems, and that in the negotiations to prepare for such a conference no agreement has been reached. The House of Commons must know, so that we can tell our constituents, whether there is now any hope for bringing such a conference together.
It is the belief of many commentators at home and abroad that the attitude of the Government in giving full and unstinting public approval to the extension of the bombing by the United States Air Force into North Vietnam, which has now reached a distance of only 45 miles south of Hanoi and 40 miles south of the main industrial and port installations of the Republic of North Vietnam—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I heard the hon. Gentleman pointing out a few moments ago that this was clearly not the time to discuss the matter in detail. Perhaps he would bear this in mind.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order. I think that the point has been made quite clear by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the hon. Gentleman that the House wants a debate next

week. As the Leader of the House is here, could we not shorten the proceedings, to enable us to get on with the main debate, by asking the right hon. Gentleman to get up and answer this question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is addressing the House and while he remains in order he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Mendelson: What I consider to be the most serious illustration of the direct responsibility of this House to the Government and to the country arises not only from the alliances to which we belong and the automatic consequences of belonging to such alliances, but from the decision, publicly stated by the Government, to give full approval to the bombing operations in North Vietnam. My submission is that unless a change occurs in the attitude of the Government and they show that they disapprove of the extension of the bombing of North Vietnam they will not be in a position to act effectively as co-chairman of the Geneva conference and to reach agreement with our partners in this enterprise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of some supposed policy or absence of policy. He must restrict himself to the necessity of a statement or debate before the Recess.

Mr. Mendelson: So that what the Government are asked to do should be effective, I pointed out that a certain attitude had to be abandoned and another adopted. But, whatever the attitude and the current difficulties of the Government, it is their duty, before we adjourn, to give the House an account of what they are doing. I want to clear up any misconception introduced by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), in his intervention. I have in no way asked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No misconception was introduced by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). He was wondering whether we could abbreviate this matter. I expect that the hon. Gentleman had in mind that the House was desiring to get on with its business.

Mr. Mendelson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a statement to be made this week. I am not asking for anything to be done next week. I


am asking for an assurance from the Leader of the House that a comprehensive statement will be forthcoming from the Foreign Secretary.
Furthermore, the general position of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations, and, in particular, as a member of the Security Council, has not been reported upon to the House. Therefore, in his discussions with the Foreign Secretary, when, as I hope he will, he arranges for a statement to be made before we adjourn, I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Foreign Secretary gives us a detailed account of the instructions given to the British representative in the Security Council in recent debates and decisions on the conflict in the Dominican Republic.
There is in this international situation perhaps the gravest seed of conflict in the last 15 years. It is quite possible, in the submission of many qualified observers of the situation who have recently been in the Far East, that unless an urgent initiative is taken matters may reach a point where the conflict cannot be contained.
In these circumstances, I appeal, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of many of my hon. Friends, for a comprehensive statement and a debate without delay.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I do not wish to keep the House long from its very important debate on Commonwealth and Colonial affairs. However, I wish to oppose the Motion moved by the Prime Minister, who has since had to leave.
I thoroughly agree with the request of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for a statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary before the House adjourns on Friday. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with me. I mention this simply because it would not be well if it were to go out to the country that the only Members of the House who wanted a statement on this vital matter, and, indeed, who were interested in it, were members of the Left wing of the Labour Party.
I thought that the most important reason which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale adduced for commenting on the

Whitsun Recess was that he wanted a statement, particularly, from the Foreign Secretary on the United Nations. This is one of many worrying matters, and it is one reason why I oppose the Motion. Many years ago I first said that one of the greatest dangers of the United Nations—and I will not go into detail—was that the world would place its reliance on a body which would be found unable to carry out its duties. This has come to pass, and, in only a passing reference, may I say that success in its recent exploits in any hot spots of the world has been significantly absent.
My main reason for opposing the adjournment of the House on Friday is this. We are in the middle of consideration of the Finance Bill. The Bill is a wreckage; that is obvious to everybody. The first part of it bears no resemblance to the Bill which was introduced. I suppose that it is no exaggeration to say—perhaps it is a slight exaggeration, but not much—that there have been hundreds of interventions by Government spokesmen saying that they would alter the Bill in this, that and the other respect on Report.
Not only have we such matters of moment as the future of the United Nations to discuss and Britain's place concerning Vietnam and foreign affairs generally, but there will shortly be—and I realise that this will be the subject of debate this afternoon—the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. These are all matters—and there are many others besides—which require the attention of the House, and I do not see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, although I have been doing my best to do so. If it is desirable to discusss Commonwealth affairs before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, I do not understand why he opposes the Motion now.

Mr. Fell: We are to have a short debate this afternoon—[Interruption.] I have taken up approximately five minutes of the time of the House on a matter which I consider to be of some importance. That compares favourably with the performance of members of the Left wing of the Labour Party, who have used the occasion to make speeches on


foreign affairs. I shall not detain the House much longer.
During the last 14 years, I have attempted many times to speak in debates on Commonwealth affairs, and I think that I have succeeded in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, or that of your predecessors, on one occasion. I contend that the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference is of the most enormous moment, and that it needs to be debated on more than one day. In addition, there are all these other matters which I mentioned which should be debated. The fact is that the Government have got in such a muddle over the wretched Finance Bill, which should never have seen the light of day, that they will have no time left to give to debate the manifold things which we should debate.

Mr. John Farr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good idea if we had perhaps a two-day debate on Commonwealth affairs next week?

Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly the reason for my intervention. I do not mind whether we have a two-day debate on Commonwealth affairs next week, or whether we again consider the Finance Bill next week. Judging from the statement which was made this afternoon, it looks as though it is urgent that we should discuss certain things in the Finance Bill, otherwise we should not have had the statement.
I oppose the Motion merely to facilitate the Government's business. I know that they need the rest; heaven knows, we all know that. If the course which I have suggested were adopted, we should have the opportunity not only to deal further with the Finance Bill—and at the moment I should not have thought there was a hope of our getting through the Bill until August—but to discuss these other matters of the greatest possible moment to this country, which is in dire trouble in many respects. Therefore, I am opposed to the Motion. That is not altogether surprising, because the Prime Minister has always astonished me, but this Motion is even more astonishing than most of his actions—

Mr. Speaker: The degree of astonishment created cannot be a reason for deferring the Recess.

4.30 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene now. The House should be reminded that the Motion is for the Recess at Whitsun to be for exactly one week; that is to say, from Friday of this week until our return on Monday, 14th June.
I take the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) about the seriousness and the importance of what is happening in San Domingo and Vietnam, but I would remind them that we have already this year had rather more foreign affairs debates than we have had by this time in any one previous Session. We have had three full days. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made statements on a number of occasions on both Vietnam and San Domingo. Nevertheless, we appreciate how serious the situation is.
I would remind my hon. Friends, too, referring to the Dominican Republic, that at present representatives of the United Nations, of the Security Council, of the Organisation of American States and of the United States Administration are all engaged in the difficult task of trying to create some form of interim Coalition Government which is acceptable to both sides. A 24-hour cease-fire came into effect on 21st May, and has been indefinitely prolonged. The situation in San Domingo, therefore, while still grave, is rather more hopeful than it was.
On 11th May when my right hon. Friend made a statement in the House—a written statement, it is true—on the situation as it was then. I have given an undertaking during business exchanges on a number of occasions, and have referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has assured me that as soon it is possible to say anything at all that is hopeful on San Domingo or Vietnam he is prepared to say it.
With regard to Vietnam, the House will realise that the United States forces abstained from bombing for five days


in the hope that negotiations would start. The object was to facilitate the commencement of negotiations which might lead to a permanent cease-fire, but the Communist Powers have adamantly refused on any occasion to negotiate. This, too, must be borne in mind.
I am sure that the debate at some point will be helpful, but I doubt very much whether it would be at this stage, when everyone is trying to reduce tension in order to arrive at a situation where fighting ceases so that we can get round the table and talk some sense into the position. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to make a statement on the Cambodia conference, which was referred to, on Thursday of this week. I will certainly have a further word with him between now and Friday, but I can give no firm assurance that he will make a statement on either Vietnam or San Domingo, because I am sure that the House would agree that there is no point in making a statement which could exacerbate the position, and could only be helpful if there were something fresh to say.
This is not an unusually long Recess. If it so happened that the position during the Recess worsened, then, under Standing Order No. 117, the House could be recalled at any time. I believe that the House is now anxious to get on with the debate on Commonwealth and Colonial affairs, and I ask hon. Members to come to a decision.

4.35 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am not very encouraged by what the Leader of the House has had to say. I got the impression that he did not particularly want a foreign affairs debate because of the embarrassment that might be caused by some of his Left-wing colleagues. If the House is to be fobbed off by a statement, possibly on Friday, it is not good enough. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the situation in South-East Asia has recently deteriorated, and could well become something far worse. We have tens of thousands of British troops in that part of the world, with families and relatives very concerned about them.
Surely, the House ought not to be given a statement; we should have had a full debate before we broke up. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) I do not suggest that the House should forgo its Recess, because I think that by Friday every right hon. and hon. Member will be glad to get away for a few days. But when one reads of 800 Australian forces leaving last week for Vietnam and British forces in Malaysia at readiness, it is just not good enough that week after week the House should be fobbed off. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made persistent attempts to get a full debate, but it seems that the Finance Bill has got the House into real difficulties.
No one on this side of the House has been filibustering on the Finance Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—If hon. Members care to study HANSARD they will see that the speeches have been almost the shortest on record. The fact is that if we were to debate the Finance Bill for a year, we would still only be scratching at the problem. I think that the Government are hiding behind the Bill rather than discuss these important world affairs.
The Leader of the House should consider giving us a half day's debate on Thursday to discuss the Vietnam problem. No harm would be done by this House discussing the matter—except for one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's Left-wing hon. Friends who, in any case, have been well discounted. It would be healthier to have a debate on the subject before we broke up on Friday.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: It is remarkable what a contrast there has been in the last few minutes between the speeches of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Members opposite have demanded that time should be provided to enable this House to debate Vietnam and San Domingo. They want to discuss the Finance Bill and a variety of other topics, but the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—who, presumably, was speaking for the Opposition—made no such admission.
We therefore now discover that the party opposite is hopelessly divided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone is always anxious to address himself to any topic, that whether he he understands it or not is beside the point—

Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) knows perfectly well that my right hon. and learned Friend actually said that we required a debate on this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I agree with that immediately. I wanted to proceed on another line, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
It is a remarkable fact that when, the other day, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked for a foreign affairs debate he never mentioned the desirability of having a debate before the Whitsun Recess. He may say so now—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I have been asking for a foreign affairs debate now for some weeks. We should have been only too glad to have had it before the Recess, but the Government set down the business for the week, and we gathered that there was no opportunity.

Mr. Shinwell: That statement is much too lame. The right hon. Gentleman may grin, but it makes no impact on my mind or on the minds of any of my hon. Friends—and if his hon. Friends behind him could see him at this moment it would have no effect on them, either. The right hon. Gentleman will have to try another tack.
The fact of the matter is that when last week, the right hon. Gentleman asked the Leader of the House for a foreign affairs debate, there was never a word about a foreign affairs debate before the Recess, nor even a reference to a statement by the Foreign Secretary on Vietnam and San Domingo. This is sheer hypocrisy. I will not use the word "humbug", because I understand that it is unparliamentary, although I would use it if it were not unparliamentary.
What is all the bother about? The Government moved a Motion which means that we want to adjourn on 4th June until 14th June—a simple Motion. My hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) have not opposed that Motion. They do not want to be here next week—the only Members who want to be here next week are the hon. Members for Macclesfield and Yarmouth—

Sir A. V. Harvey: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman's memory cannot even go back for five minutes, otherwise he would know that I made it clear that every hon. Member would require to get away on Friday.

Mr. Shinwell: Then only one hon. Member wants to be here next week, but why should we give way to him just to let him make a speech on his favourite topic? What is his favourite topic? He has not got one. The only topic he ever engaged in was attacking his own side. We would hear him making attack on, for example, the Leader of the Opposition as he used to make attacks on the former right hon. Member for Bromley. The hon. Gentleman will recall what he used to say about Mr. Macmillan. We are not coming back for that sort of thing.
I am only too willing to come back next week. I can attend to other engagements, and I am not having a holiday. I do not need a holiday—unlike some of the decrepit, infirm Members on the other side. I do not mean those on the Liberal benches. I understand that they are conciliatory towards the Government and I do not want to offend them, because all contributions, political and otherwise, are gratefully received.
As I say, this is a simple Motion, and my hon. Friends have not opposed it. They have asked, quite properly, and in constitutional, democratic and Parliamentary fashion that a statement should be made on this very important topic before we adjourn next Friday. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has explained why he does not feel it necessary to repeat statements that have been made. He has said that he wants time to enable the Foreign Secretary to gain more information and then make a statement to the


House. He said quite explicitly that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Thursday—[An HON. MEMBER: "On Cambodia."] If a statement is made on Cambodia hon. Members can depend on it that questions will be asked about Vietnam. My geography is not as good as it was when I was at school, but I understand that Cambodia is not remote from Vietnam—it is almost contiguous—so the subject can be raised.
The only caveat I have is that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone managed to inject a foreign affairs speech into his comments on the Motion, but that is a matter between friends. We on this side can afford occasional differences of opinion. We are not having a debate about leadership. We have made up our minds about the leader of our party—[Interruption.] The leader of our party is highly satisfactory to hon. Members on this side, and to the party in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and in an election he will be satisfactory to the electorate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. What the right hon. Gentleman says may or may not be true. It is not, however, related to whether we adjourn on Friday.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is true all the same.
We are debating a few observations from my hon. Friends on this side directed to an important topic and a matter of international and national concern. That is a proper thing to do. My hon. Friends would do themselves less than justice if they did not raise these questions time and again, because they concern the minds and hearts of every right-thinking person.
There are, however, certain difficulties that appear in the minds of the Government and occasionally we must assume that the Government have, perhaps, more information than hon. Members have, more information than I have myself. I regret that. [Interruption.] Was the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) interrupting?

Mr. Marten: While I am much enjoying what the right hon. Gentleman

is saying, he has in this House taken a deep interest in the Commonwealth and we are trying to get on to a debate on the Commonwealth. Could not the right hon. Gentleman show his deep interest in it by stopping filibustering?

Mr. Shinwell: I accept that rebuke. I wholly deserve it. I once made a speech on the Commonwealth during the war which gained the praise even of the late Sir Winston Churchill. I should be glad to make a speech on the Commonwealth again, but I have no intention of doing it this evening. I do not want to hold up the next debate. It is important. Indeed, we on this side have more regard for the Commonwealth than hon. Members opposite, who are concerned about going into the Common Market and betraying the Commonwealth. However, I must not go into that, at least not in detail.
I suggest that now that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has to some extent—I would not put it higher than that—satisfied my hon. Friends that there will be a statement on Thursday, we now might proceed to have a debate on Commonwealth and Colonial affairs.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I will be much briefer than any who have gone before and less witty than my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), because I am lacking his youthful lightheartedness and his timeless virility. I will be not at all controversial, across the Floor of the House or in any other way, but there is one thing that was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House which causes me concern and which should cause concern to any hon. Members who are jealous of their duties and responsibilities and not merely here this afternoon for a giggle.
My right hon. Friend said that the Foreign Secretary would have a debate at a time when he thought that it would be useful. That implies that the Foreign Secretary or, perhaps, the Government are the only people who are capable of deciding when it is useful to have a debate. We are now talking about when the House should sit and when it should not. That is really a question of the relations between Government and Parliament and of how far there is a duty upon


the Government to keep Parliament informed about what they are up to.
None of us is a child in arms. We all know that a great deal of the work of government has to go on in private. We all know that there are circumstances in which at least the early stages of negotiations, be they with hostile Powers or with allies, have to be carried out in secrecy. We all know that there are situations in which the House cannot be informed from the beginning of what is going on. Nevertheless, there is here a matter of balance. One cannot go to the other extreme and say that the Government will present the House with a fait accompli when they have done all that they propose to do and have completely committed themselves and provide the House of Commons with, at best, no more than an opportunity of rubber-stamping what they have done.
I for one do not accept the unilateral right of a Minister to claim personal omniscience to decide when it is useful to tell the House something and when it is not. The House has a right to have some say in when it should be told something. Therefore, with all the respect that I have for my right hon. Friend, he was being a bit below his normal high standard as Leader of the House. He was really saying to us, "Look, children. Uncle has got the thing under control and when he has something to tell you, he will come along and tell you. Be patient till then." That just is not good enough.
In a parliamentary democracy, we cannot consent to have Government by scrambler telephone all the time. There must be a limit. The duty of the Government is to hold the balance between their responsibilities to their partners in negotiation, on the one hand, and their responsibilities to this House, on the other. What worries me is that the balance is getting tilted. The statement of my right hon. Friend indicated that he for one did not mind the balance being tilted.
What worries me about next week's Recess, like all other Recesses, is that it gives Ministers many more hours a day to sit on their scrambler telephones. Until now, the hours spent on those telephones—[Laughter.] As I have said, there are

some hon. Members who have come only for a giggle and who do not care tup-pence about the rights of the House. I am not talking to them and I am not put off by their silly sneering. [Interruption.] I am trying to make—I know that I am not very good at it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) does not behave himself better, I will not vote for him at the next election.
I know that I am not very good at explaining serious points—I lack some of the advantages of many other hon. Members—but I am trying, within the limits of my very limited capacity, to make the serious point that the House should not accept the Government's saying that they will have debates when they consider it useful without the House having any jurisdiction over when we think that it might be useful to have a debate.
On those grounds, I do not find the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at all satisfactory and I hope that he will think more about it before he takes it as being final and legally binding.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: For nearly the past month, I have been asking the Government to find time for a debate on South-East Asia. Quite apart from political points which may be made on either side—I do not want to enter into debate on this—I am certain that the country regards this Parliament as missing and failing in its duty unless the major matters of the day are discussed here.
I believe that we have failed in our duty, which is to discuss this precise and absolute problem which now faces us in South-East Asia, not merely in Vietnam, not merely in Cambodia, about which we are told, there is to be a statement, but in Malaysia and in relation to what the Australians and the New Zealanders are doing.
This is of vital interest to our people. Whether political points are to be scored one way or the other, this is an issue which should be debated by Parliament. That is what Parliament is for. I regard it as an error on the part of the Government not to have found time for a debate


before now, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said. I suggest now that a promise should be given by the Government that in the week we return there will be a debate on the precise problems which face this country in South-East Asia as a whole.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Bowden: I do not recall having said from this Box that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have a foreign affairs debate when he is ready to have one. I said that I would ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement and that I was sure he would do so when he had something new to say to the House. That is precisely what I said.
I should like to correct one other point which has arisen during the discussion concerning the request for a foreign affairs debate. I do not have before me a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but on Thursday of last week the Leader of the Opposition asked me for a foreign affairs debate to which I replied that I hoped that it could be arranged on a Supply day. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not ask me for a foreign affairs debate before Whitsun, nor did either of my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). What they asked for was a statement before Whitsun.
I reiterate, as I said before, that I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and ask him whether he can make a statement before we rise for the Whitsun Recess in the hope that there is something new to say; and I hope that there may be. I cannot, however, promise a debate on foreign affairs between that with this assurance, the House will now and the Whitsun Recess. I hope now agree that we can pass the Motion.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Leader of the House assure us that if the statement is to be made it will be made not later than Thursday, and not on Friday, when hon. Members will have been up all night and probably will have dispersed?

Mr. Bowden: I would much prefer to look at the position, having discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 14th June.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT)

4.58 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957.
It is fortuitous, but, perhaps, not as inappropriate as it may seem at first sight, that the House should briefly—and I promise to be brief—leave for a moment the world affairs with which it is concerning itself today to try to deal justly with the little people.
The modest Measure which I seek leave to introduce may serve the just needs of some who have been caught between the upper and nether millstones of statutory law and judge-made law. My Amendment is limited to the addition of two words in Section I of the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957. That Section states:
A single woman who is with child, or who has been delivered of an illegitimate child, may apply by complaint to a justice of the peace for a summons to be served on the man alleged by her to be the father of the child.
These are words that have an honourable parentage throughout the Bastardy Acts, or, if I may change the metaphor, they have been adopted from the first Bastardy Act in the nineteenth century without modification in each succeeding Amendment of those Acts. Nevertheless, they are words that have always been regarded by the judges as unsatisfactory.
From as early as 1878, they have been modified by the courts to include within the definition of a single woman a married woman who has been reduced to the condition of a single woman by widowhood or otherwise. In practice, this has meant that courts have always allowed a married woman to sue a putative father as long as she can satisfy the court that she is living without access by her husband even if that is as a result of force of circumstances.
In former years, as I believe, the test was whether there had been physical access by the husband to the wife. Since 1947, however, the courts have been limited, following the judgment in a case called Watson v. Tuckwell, to the test of whether a woman is living in a completely separate household from her husband.
Within my experience this has led to injustice. In the first place, to the wife, for it is possible nowadays for evidence to be given in the divorce courts against an adulterous wife that she has borne a child other than to her husband, if the husband can prove physical non-access, yet this is insufficient to establish by the wife that the child is that of the putative father for the purpose of the Affiliation Proceedings Act.
It is also greatly unjust to the child. It is possible for the husband to repudiate the maintenance of a child which he declares is not his, and which he can prove to be so. It is also possible for the putative father, as the law stands, to repudiate the maintenance of his child by relying on the aid given by the limits of judicial interpretation of Section 1 of the Act. Perhaps even more important, it is possible under the provisions of the National Assistance Act for the child not to be eligible for National Assistance, but to be referred by the Board to the husband, even though, if the husband chooses to repudiate the child, the Board has no remedy against that husband.
My proposal is to amend the Section so that it will now read:
A single woman who is with child, or any woman who has been delivered of an illegitimate child, may apply by complaint to a Justice of the peace for a summons to be served on the man alleged by her to be the father of the child.
The effect would be to resolve the ambiguity and the artificiality of the interpretation which has, in practice, worked injustice to many women. It in no way would extend the law so as more adversely to affect the child's status.
The question of the child's status as legitimate or illegitimate has already been amply provided for by other Acts. All that the amendment does is to give every woman the same right before the law to prove her allegations before a court. If she finds it necessary, and can prove her case, she can ensure, if the Bill is acceptable to the House, that the law's assistance is available to all children born illegitimately, and that no child is shut out from the protection of the law merely by an unfortunate phrasing of a Statute which, from the beginning, courts have recognised as unsatisfactory, but which remains so still and will continue to do so until Parliament puts it right.
In those circumstances, I ask the leave of the House to bring in my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. William Hamling, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Geoffrey Howe, and Mr. David Walder.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Short.]

COMMONWEALTH AND COLONIAL AFFAIRS

5.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): This House has not had a major general debate on Commonwealth affairs as such since 1960, though we had a good and full debate early last year on Commonwealth assistance and trade matters. In 1960, the Commonwealth was then at the beginning of one of the most important phases in its history. We tend to think of the Commonwealth as an old institution. So in many ways it is. It is rooted in the past. But the increase in its membership and the development of its character during the last five years have changed it considerably. The Commonwealth of 1965 is something very different from that of 1960.
Let me remind the House of some of the changes. Starting with the independence of Nigeria in 1960, we have seen the emergence to independence and membership of the Commonwealth of a further 12 countries in Africa, in Europe and in the Caribbean. Two of them—Tanganyika and Zanzibar—have since joined together in the United Republic of Tanzania. In South-East Asia we have seen the withdrawal of British colonial rule from Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak and the federation of these territories with Malaya to form Malaysia. In 1961, South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth.
We now have a Commonwealth comprising 21 members. Their total population numbers about 750 million. One person in four in the world today lives in a Commonwealth country. There are Commonwealth countries in all five continents.
In a dangerously divided world it is a priceless advantage that 21 such diverse nations can come together voluntarily in a basic spirit of friendship. Our association is a world in miniature. It often reflects the divisions of the world at large. But we none the less work together. We listen to each other even when we cannot agree. This serves to soften the sharpest edges of our differences. It makes accessible great areas of co-operation which would otherwise remain closed to us.
Inevitably, as a result of history, many of the countries of the Commonwealth

have—at least for the time being—more points of contact with Britain than with their other fellow members. But this is changing. More and more, Governments and peoples are discovering how much they have in common with each other in all parts of the Commonwealth.
I was particularly struck by some remarks by Lord Howick of Glendale, in another place. He said that recently in West Africa an influential political figure said to him, "I am about to go to Canada. When I am in Canada I do not feel a foreigner."
Personal contacts are the very roots of the special Commonwealth relationship. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly be welcoming his colleagues to the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers next month. But already, since this Government came into office, British Ministers have visited 16 of the 20 Commonwealth countries overseas. It has been my privilege to attend four Cabinet meetings in other countries during my travels overseas. In addition, nearly 100 Ministers have visited London, 14 of them Heads of Government.
There may be speculation—there usually is—about the purpose of the coming Prime Ministers' meeting. It is an essential part of the Commonwealth way of doing things for Heads of Government, in spite of their individual preoccupations, to get together at intervals; to keep in personal touch; to discuss generally what they are doing, what they hope to do, what worries them. Sometimes, as in 1962, some particular broad issue calls for consideration. But this time, as is more usual, the meeting has grown out of a general feeling that the time was ripe to renew contacts, and to review the contribution which we can all make to the well-being of our association and of the world at large.
It is not for us, in this debate, to try to lay down what should or should not be on the agenda. It is for the Prime Ministers themselves to decide on their agenda when they meet. The last thing we want to do with these Commonwealth meetings is to turn them into sterile set debates. This is important. It is the informality of the Commonwealth relationship between Governments, and its basis of easy, personal exchange of view, which give it its unique value as a force


for understanding in the world—a world in which people with different hopes and fears, different values and interests, are inevitably made to jostle dangerously close together.
No doubt my right hon. Friend and his Commonwealth colleagues will be carrying further some of the proposals made last July. For instance, at their last meeting, Commonwealth Prime Ministers were anxious to set up some continuing machinery which would help to achieve yet closer and more informed understanding between their Governments. They instructed Commonwealth officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat.
They also considered the need to establish an autonomous Commonwealth Foundation for the purpose of administering a fund to facilitate interchanges between Commonwealth organisations in professional fields. This proposal, too, has been examined by Commonwealth officials. We look forward to final decisions on both the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Foundation being taken at the meeting of the Prime Ministers.
We in this House attach special importance to the development of exchanges and understanding between Parliamentarians of Commonwealth countries. We all know and applaud the activities of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested in a debate here in February last year, some extension of this work may now be practicable. As some hon. Members will know, we are at present examining the possibility of arranging for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly. We think that such a meeting might be of great value in pointing the way for the development of even closer links and understanding between Commonwealth Parliamentarians in the future. But our ideas are necessarily subject to the views of other Commonwealth countries. I hope we can make a start on collecting these views when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are here this month.
There are a great many other ways in which we are co-operating with each other to an increasing extent. In much of this activity close personal contacts are of cardinal importance. It was to

develop and reinforce these that during the Easter Recess I paid visits to Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. I was able to have most useful discussions with the Governments of those countries.
In Australia, I was invited to attend a Cabinet meeting. I also met the Leader of the Opposition and talked with civic and business and trades union leaders in Melbourne and Sydney. I was able, too, in public addresses, Press conferences and radio and television appearances, to explain this Government's policies. I found, as always, close interest in and understanding of the problems which face this country and the world. In New Zealand, I also met the Cabinet and the Leader of the Opposition, and made a television broadcast, and, again, I think that the visit, though so short, proved to be valuable on both sides.
Tantalisingly brief though it was, my tour revealed the broad harmony which exists between our countries in foreign affairs. We naturally try to show our concern for our fellow citizens in other Commonwealth countries by helping them in periods of natural calamity. Hardly a year passes without some part of the Commonwealth being struck by cyclone or flood, or some other such disaster. A pre-monsoon cyclone recently hit East Pakistan. Our messages of sympathy were backed by an immediate and practical money gift, and, as usual, British voluntary agencies have sprung into action.
Last December, Ceylon was hit by a hurricane, causing 200 deaths. Here again, the Government gave swift and generous help. A public appeal collected a further contribution from private citizens in Great Britain. I think that it will be agreed that this shows that the ordinary person in this country has a real interest in his fellow Commonwealth citizens.
It is in the same spirit of understanding and generous help as between partners that we, with our friends in the Commonwealth, seek solutions to the problems raised by large scale immigration into Britain. It is essentially in the general Commonwealth interest that we should take in only as many immigrants from overseas as we can properly absorb. We must also do all we can to help those already here to settle happily as full members of the community.
We have already made it clear that in formulating immigration policy and operating our controls we intend to take full account of the views of Commonwealth Governments. Lord Mountbatten's Mission accordingly left in April to visit eight Commonwealth countries mainly interested in immigration into Britain to find out the facts about migration from them to Britain, and to hear their views about the working of our controls. On receiving the Mission's report after its return on 12th June we shall be able to formulate future policy on immigration from the Commonwealth with full knowledge of the relevant facts and of the views of the Governments mainly concerned.
The appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) to speed the integration of immigrants already here and the Race Relations Bill, with its emphasis on conciliation, are further positive steps indicating the importance we attach to achieving urgent progress with the problems and challenges set by immigration.
A further important field of co-operation within the Commonwealth is that if aid. We shall continue to help the newly independent States which were formerly British Colonies in the development of their economics. British Colonies want all the help they can get. Today the Commonwealth receives by far the largest share of our bilateral economic aids—80 per cent. of the whole in 1964.
Over 11,000 British experts are serving in developing Commonwealth countries, either employed by overseas Governments or under contract to the Ministry of Overseas Development. The Commonwealth Development Corporation continues to occupy a vitally important place of our aid effort. It undertakes investment in development projects, both on its own behalf and in co-operation with Governments or with private concerns. And along with its investment it provides valuable technical and managerial "know-how".
As evidence of our intention to maximise our aid effort within the limits of our resources, the Government have set up the Ministry of Overseas Development, with responsibility for our economic aid programmes. The Ministry is currently studying the structure of the

existing programme, and the various factors which must influence the total amount and the type of aid which we can afford.
We do not expect our aid to produce short-term political effects. But we have a very real interest in doing what we can to further the strength and stability of the countries of the Commonwealth with whom this country has over the years developed, to our mutual advantage, so many common economic and commercial ties.
Commercial ties are one of the most important features of our relations with our Commonwealth partners. Much of the overseas trade by which we live has been with the Commonwealth. But the proportion has been declining steadily in the last 13 years. In 1952, about 40 per cent. of our total exports went to the Commonwealth. Our percentage of total imports was near the same figure. Both percentages have dropped by roughly a quarter since then. Moreover, in absolute terms, Britain has not been making a significant increase in her exports to the Commonwealth in the last five years. This is disturbing because of its implications not only for our trade, but also for our general relations with the Commonwealth.
Since October, we have had under scrutiny what can be done to increase our trade with the Commonwealth. In recent years British exports to non-Commonwealth markets and imports from non-Commonwealth sources have both increased. But we have not been maintaining our share of the increasing imports into important Commonwealth markets, despite all our advantages there. One of the tasks that the Government have, therefor, set themselves is enlarging our share of Commonwealth imports by improving our competitiveness in their markets.
When this Government came into office, there was Committee for Trade Promotion in Canada, but, surprising though it may seem, nothing comparable for other parts of the Commonwealth. We have remedied this. We have established the Commonwealth Exports Council and a series of Area Committees for Australia, for New Zealand, for Commonwealth countries in Asia, in Africa and in the Caribbean. I am sure that these will help to focus the efforts and


experience of Government, traders and industry.
It is only if Britain can increase her exports that she will be able to pay for her imports. The Commonwealth supplies about 30 per cent. of our imports and takes about 30 per cent. of our exports. There is plenty of room for us to increase our exports to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth trade amounts to almost 25 per cent. of free world trade. We reject altogether the idea that Commonwealth trade is doomed to failure. We must go all out to improve and increase Commonwealth trade.
I turn now to Africa. Whatever party we may belong to, all of us, I think, subscribe to the policy of leading our dependent territories as rapidly as possible to independence. Since the 1960 debate to which I have referred, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Zanzibar, Malawi, Zambia and the Gambia have all become independent. In doing so, moreover, they have each sought and have been granted, by the common consent of their partners, membership of the Commonwealth. Today African countries make up nearly half the overall membership of the Commonwealth association. Their importance can be judged from the fact that they alone represent nearly half of the combined population of the 32 independent States in Africa, South of the Sahara.
We are living through what has, with some justification, been called the African decade. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), my predecessor, would agree with me on this at least, that these are demanding times in which to hold office as Commonwealth Secretary. We have had, and shall continue to experience, our full share of both disappointment and encouragement.
There is nothing easier than to question the value of our relationship with our Commonwealth partners in Africa. We are asked why we tolerate attacks which are sometimes made on us and our policies from African quarters. Critics point to what they see as the failure of parliamentary democracy to take root and flourish on African soil. They ask what return, what practical benefits we

gain from our unceasing efforts to help and advise our friends in sub-Saharan Africa; and so forth.
I have always felt that such criticisms run wide of the mark. They fail to take account of the enormous difficulties with which the leaders of the new Africa find themselves confronted as soon as they get their independence. It overlooks the very real and solid achievements there have been. I think that it forgets, too, that, if there have been mistakes and failures, that is not unique in Africa.
Of course, we in Britain will go on having our ups and downs in our relationships with the Commonwealth countries in Africa. We should delude ourselves if we believed otherwise. These relationships cannot be settled and secure until a mutually satisfactory solution has been found to the burning problems which still concern everyone south of the Zambesi, and of which I shall have more to say later.
I am sure that the House will agree that we are in a specially responsible position. Our own historical, administrative and other links with the Commonwealth countries in Africa are very close. Without exception they were strengthened in each case rather than weakened when they gained their independence.
Hon. Members will, I hope, agree that it must be our constant and patient policy to preserve these links and to forge new ones whenever the occasion arises. This, after all, is only common sense and of practical benefit both to Africans and to ourselves. I will give only a few examples of what our own involvement in Africa amounts to. About 200,000 of our own people are still living and working there.
Since 1937, we have increased our exports to what now comprises Commonwealth Africa from £22 million to over £200 million. British investment in Commonwealth Africa is estimated at roughly £500 million. Last year, over 16,000 students from Commonwealth Africa were studying in Britain. Today there are about 1,500 teachers working in Commonwealth countries in Africa under British aid schemes. And our bilateral economic aid continues on an increasingly larger scale.
It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue to give sympathetic help and support to our Commonwealth partners in Africa to the best of our ability and to our mutual advantage. In this way we can hope to go on playing our part in the achievement of stability and social and economic progress throughout the continent. But the future of our relations with Commonwealth Africa—perhaps the future of the Commonwealth itself—is largely dependent on finding satisfactory solutions to the problems of Southern Africa.
Since we came into office last October, Her Majesty's Government have been continuously and intensely concerned with the search for a solution to the difficult problem of Rhodesia. My own visit with the Lord Chancellor to Rhodesia was an earnest of our determination to find a way forward in a situation which remained intractable. As my right hon Friend the Prime Minister said at the time, it was of vital importance to Rhodesia, ourselves, and the whole Common wealth to do so.
The House will remember that, on my return, I was not altogether without hopes of working towards an acceptable solution. Our exchanges with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia have continued. Progress was, naturally, retarded during the election campaign in Rhodesia, but we have remained in contact with Mr. Smith, and I do not think that the prospects of negotiation have been adversely affected by the elections. The Prime Minister told the House, on 29th April, of our readiness to seek a negotiated settlement with the Rhodesian Government. We have now, as we have announced, asked our High Commissioner in Salisbury to resume discussions with Mr. Smith with a view to these negotiations being profitabily carried forward.
For our part, this represents a genuine attempt to explore every possibility of reaching a just and lasting solution. We are under no illusions that the answer will be easy to find, but we believe that Mr. Smith is sincere in his wish to seek a solution by negotiation if at all possible. The granting of independence to Rhodesia is the responsibility of the British Government and Parliament. This was recognised by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their meeting in London last year.
We fully understand the anxiety of many of our friends here and in the Commonwealth, but we hope that they, too, will understand that, if a peaceful and lasting solution is to be found which will win the support of all peoples in Rhodesia, it can only be through a process of delicate and realistic negotiation.
The House will know that Her Majesty's Government are frequently urged to pursue extreme courses of action against Rhodesia. Those who advocate such courses have either not considered their appalling consequences to Rhodesia and to other countries, or they are, for political reasons, exploiting the situation to their own ends, without the slightest regard for the races in Rhodesia. The concern of Her Majesty's Government and, I am sure of the whole House, is for the safety and the welfare of all the peoples in Rhodesia.
Her Majesty's Government are also aware, and have been at pains to point out, that any hasty or ill-judged action by the Rhodesia Government would have disastrous consequences for that country. This is why we believe that the only possible course, in order to reach a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, is that of patient and realistic negotiation.
We are also charged with treating Rhodesia differently from the way in which we dealt with other former colonial territories in their progress to independence. The Rhodesia problem is without parallel. I will explain why. Rhodesia is the only territory for which we have a responsibility which has enjoyed the penultimate stage of constitutional development before independence—that is, full internal self-government—for a period of 42 years.
This means that the Rhodesia Government have not been staffed or controlled by the Colonial Office. Their police force, armed forces and administration have all been under the control of the Rhodesia Government. These are the realities which must be borne in mind in any consideration of this difficult problem.
There must be a willingness on all sides to discuss and compromise. We, for our part, shall continue, no matter what the difficulties, to seek an agreed solution through patient negotiation. In our judgment, for the well-being of the


peoples of Rhodesia, there is no other way. I am encouraged in this search by the way in which patience and perseverance were rewarded in the difficult problem that confronted us when the Government took office last October over the mineral royalties dispute in Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia.
The Northern Rhodesian Government had made it plain that they would not allow the chartered company to continue to draw copper royalties after independence. If the question were not settled by agreement by the time of independence, they intended to proceed immediately to hold a popular referendum on a constitutional amendment which would enable them to take over the company's mineral rights without compensation.
When I was due to attend the Zambian independence celebrations, the question was still wide open. Talks with the previous Government, last September, had failed because of the apparent unbridgeable gap between the Northern Rhodesian Government and the chartered company. We did not take any different view from that of the previous administration on Her Majesty's Government's position and responsibility in the matter. But we were not prepared to let this new African State enter into independence with a legacy which could jeopardise our relations with it from the outset. We took a decision, therefore, to offer a contribution towards a settlement. When I touched down at Lusaka airport, on 22nd October, we had only 30 hours to go before independence and we had to negotiate an agreement before the expiration of that time.
Some brisk and realistic talking was done late at night and into the early hours of the morning. It was not easy for me, for the Zambian Ministers or for the President of the chartered company. But I am glad to say that, towards the end of the day, about four hours before the moment of independence, we agreed on the principles of the settlement, which I reported to the House on 24th November last. Further south—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that topic, and since he mentioned that our High Commissioner in Salisbury had been told to get in touch again with

the new Government, which I think the whole House would expect him to do as part of his normal duties, would the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about what Her Majesty's Government have in mind? Is it suggested, for example, that there should be a conference in London or a further Ministerial visit at which discussions will take place on matters like education and possible Government assistance in that regard?

Mr. Bottomley: No. I think that it would be unwise at this stage, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, for me to go further, remembering that the Prime Minister of Rhodesia has yet to reply to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that it would be wise to leave things there for now. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me further on this issue.
Further south, we still have our continuing colonial responsibilities for the three Southern African territories of Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland. In the last five years they have been set on the path towards Independence. One of them, Basutoland, has just held elections under an advanced constitution which is designed to lead to independence next year. In March this year successful elections were held in Bechuanaland and the first Prime Minister of the country, Mr. Seretse Khama, assumed office.
Swaziland, which achieved its first Legislative Assembly as recently as last year, is necessarily a little way behind the others. But a constitution, which was hammered out only after long discussion and some differences of opinion, has been worked out in a spirit of co-operation between the ruling party and the colonial administration.
Next, Asia. We, along with all friends of India and Pakistan, were deeply concerned when fighting broke out last month between India and Pakistan forces in the Rann of Kutch. There was a very real danger that it could escalate into a conflict of tragic dimensions. We felt that it was right to offer at once to give what help we could towards resolving the situation.
I am glad to say that within a few days of our initiative both sides undertook to do nothing to aggravate the situation, so


that hostilities have virtually been in suspense. Since then, the two Governments have been working towards an agreement which, we hope, will not only open the way to a formal cease-fire but also to a lasting settlement of the frontier in this area. I am hopeful that they will succeed, but it has not been an easy task, and there are still points of difference between the two sides which have to be overcome. We have been trying to give what help we can, and we remain ready to do anything the two countries may consider useful towards settling the issues which remain outstanding between them.
In South-East Asia it is our firm policy to continue helping Malaysia to defend her independence and territorial integrity as long as she wants our help. Commonwealth ties apart, we are committed to this by the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement. We have no ulterior motive whatever. Hon. Members will recall that at the recent S.E.A.T.O. conference, in London, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave public emphasis to this in the most straightforward and telling words.
During recent months there has been frequent talk of negotiations between Malaysia and Indonesia. No doubt we shall hear further calls before long for these discussions to be continued. We would, indeed, be happy to see negotiations bring about a peaceful settlement of any grievances between Indonesia and Malaysia. But mere talk of a desire to neeotiate—which is as far as Indonesia's peaceful protestations have ever gone—is not enough, particularly when Indonesian leaders constantly reiterate their determination to crush Malaysia at all costs. Nevertheless, as the House will recall, the Prime Minister of Malaysia has never failed to say "Yes" to Indonesian proposals for discussions. Invariably, it has been the Indonesians who have drawn back.
In this situation it is difficult to see what action Malaysia, Britain or any other of Malaysia's friends can usefully take. We can only continue to make it clear that force, or the threat of force, as a means to a political end, will not be allowed to succeed. This certainly does not mean that we despair of a peaceful settlement. Several countries, which are in friendly relations with both parties,

are still patiently and actively trying to promote a reconciliation. For our part, we wish them well. We would like to see this problem settled.
Meanwhile, Britain's duty is clear—to discharge our obligations to our friends. The burden is no light one, but it is within our powers and there can be no question of our shirking it. Both our capacity to discharge this duty, and our position in the Middle East will, to some extent, be affected by our success in resolving the problems which confront us in South Arabia. The key issue here is the constitutional future of the area.
We have declared our willingness that Aden, and all the States of the Protectorate of South Arabia, including those which at present lie outside the Federation, should become independent as soon as practicable and, in any case, not later than 1968. There is general agreement that, in preparation for this independence, the local constitutional arrangements should be reshaped on more democratic lines, and that the possibility of achieving closer political unity within the area should be explored.
With these aims in mind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made known his intention to appoint a Constitutional Commission to visit South Arabia, and to consider with the Governments and political parties there what will be the most appropriate constitutional structure for the future. It will, we hope, prove possible for the membership of this Commission to be international in character, so that its eventual recommendations and the action taken as a result of them can command general support and acceptance, both inside and outside the territory.
Another of Britain's colonial responsibilities whose political and constitutional future is of interest to the Commonwealth is British Guiana. Here the situation, both politically and economically, justified the cautious optimism expressed by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary following his visit there in February. The Coalition Government, under Mr. Burnham, have made an encouraging start and have shown themselves alive to the need to secure the confidence of the Indian community in their administration. Both sides of the


House will be very pleased that the opposition party, led by Dr. Jagan, has agreed that the party should take its place in the House of Assembly.
It is against this background that the Premier of British Guiana has been informed that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to hold a conference as early as practicable to discuss among other things a programme for independence. It is not possible, at this stage, to say exactly when such a conference will be held.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The Secretary of State talks about a programme for independence. Does he mean to fix a date for independence?

Mr. Bottomley: No date has been fixed for the conference as yet. It is hoped to have a constitutional conference.

Mr. Sandys: Could we be clear on this point? The Secretary of State said that there would be a conference to discuss or to consider a programme for independence. The pledge which I gave was that we would hold a conference to fix a firm date for independence. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the intention?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. If it is at all possible, the conference will try to fix a firm date; but the conference has to be held first before it can decide what it will do.

Mr. Sandys: Does the Secretary of State realise that he is saying something which is quite serious? He is casting doubts on the intention of the Government to fulfil a very firm pledge that the conference would be held after the elections to fix a date for independence. That is in the White Paper and it is an absolutely firm undertaking.

Mr. Bottomley: There is no intention to depart from any undertaking which has been given. What I am saying at the moment is that it is intended, as and when it is convenient to all parties concerned to do so, to convene a conference. As a result of the conference, it is quite likely that it may fix a date, but it is not by any means certain whether that will be done at this conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be in a position, when he

is able to announce a conference, to say exactly what he has in mind. It is against this background that the conference will be held, and I must leave it in that position at this moment.
Finally, I should like to mention Brunei. Hon. Members will have seen the communiqué issued after my recent talks with the Sultan. It is my hope that the working of the new Ministerial system will be so successful as to enable the Sultan to convene at an early date a constitutional conference to make recommendations on the means of introducing further advances.
I have covered a very wide field, but there are few international questions today which do not affect the Commonwealth one way or another. It is a rich and varied tapestry which will form the background to the meeting later this month of the leaders of the member countries.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Commonwealth is still a young association. It may be too early to be certain of its shape in the future. It would not be the living thing it is if it were not constantly changing. But all of us who are members of it are determined that it shall have a future. Moreover, we can see a real and cardinal importance for the Commonwealth in the years ahead, bridging as it does the deep and dangerous divisions of race politics and economic levels that threaten to sunder the world of tomorrow.
If the Commonwealth can play its part in this way, if it can point the way towards greater international co-operation, if it can help to reduce tension and promote understanding, it will make a great and lasting contribution to mankind. With it, the chief hope for mankind lies. The Commonwealth association provides a basis for an orderly and stable world. If it fails, it is hard to believe that anything else will succeed.
But success will come only if the peoples and Governments of every nation in the Commonwealth play their parts to the full. We have a great task before us and one which could not be more important or more rewarding. I hope that all the wealth of good will, co-operation and understanding that has been created will be used towards the ultimate goal of world peace. It is in


this spirit that I am sure that we all look forward to a successful Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting.

5.47 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take the view that our request for a debate on the Commonwealth was timely. It has enabled the Secretary of State to make a very wide survey of the Commonwealth and the activities going on in it. We are grateful for that and for what he has said. It comes before an important meeting which is about to take place of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. In 1957, there were nine Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Today there are 21. A discussion in the House, which has for so long carried the full responsibility for directing Commonwealth affairs, can be very useful and helpful before a Prime Ministers' meeting.
As the Secretary of State himself reminded us, we no longer direct the modern Commonwealth. The attitude that Whitehall knows best receives a very lukewarm reception, as the Secretary of State knows, in modern Commonwealth circles. Nevertheless, the British Prime Minister, at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, is expected to make constructive proposals to help the progress of this association of sovereign and independent States, because that is what they are.
The Secretary of State told us of the many constitutional changes that have taken place in recent years, some of them quite lately. In his survey he reminded us that Commonwealth countries are meeting situations of great difficulty. Indeed, some countries are meeting situations of crisis. For his comfort, may I say that I do not remember an occasion on which this has not been so. Somehow, we have got through up to now.
Malaysia is very much in our thoughts. We can say from both sides of the House—this has been declared time and again—that we will stand by Malaysia and fulfil our obligations to her as long as she is under pressure of aggression from Indonesia. There is the quarrel, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, between India and Pakistan, which is not only so tragic because two Commonwealth members are hostile to each other, but

which is so wasteful in terms of defence of the subcontinent of India. If the subcontinent is under pressure from the Chinese, India and Pakistan must use every effort to settle their quarrels and to join in the defence of their own subcontinent in which we and the Americans are helping them so much today.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Southern Rhodesia and the constitutional problems there and the problem of Southern Rhodesia moving to the independence which all of us wants to see her gain. I would not add to or subtract a word from what the right hon. Gentleman said today. I think that he described the situation and in doing so received the support of both sides of the House. I was glad to hear him say that the Government's intention is to open up again negotiations with Mr. Smith, with the aim of achieving a compromise which will lead to an honourable independence for that country, accepted by them and by us and acceptable to the Commonwealth.
I was less than happy—although the right hon. Gentleman did not elaborate on it—about the situation in Aden. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us a little more about what his right hon. Friend meant when he said that the Commission which is to make recommendations in preparation for independence is to be international. It surely must be the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom to lead this territory to independence. We cannot shed that responsibility on to anyone else. Therefore, I do not see the point of having members from overseas on this Commission. Still more do I express the hope that the Committee of Twenty-four will not be allowed to divert us from our purpose of giving independence to this territory in our own way.
I want to deal shortly with some of the broader and more basic features of Commonwealth relationships which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon but did not develop. I want to do so because I do not think that we can have the picture complete unless these questions are in our minds and are debated. First of all, there is the change in the form and outlook of the Commonwealth and the consequences which follow from that for Commonwealth trade. There are also the shortage of capital and the problems


and threat of poverty, particularly in some of the Asian countries. There is the great overriding need for education and training as an absolute condition of progress, and I should like to say something about the possibility of harmonising the interests of the Commonwealth and of Europe, which is perhaps the biggest question of our day.
The debate is bound to focus largely on ways and means of increasing Commonwealth trade and assisting progress in the developing countries. It is the desire of all hon. Members on both sides of the House to maximise Commonwealth trade and to assist in any action which will enable African and Asian members to stand on their own feet earlier than otherwise they could do. If that is our common aim we must ask ourselves what are the basic needs. All Commonwealth countries look for more trade and more investment. While I was at the Commonwealth Office and since it can certainly be said that investment has been as important as trade.
If action by Britain is to hit the target and do what the Commonwealth countries themselves wish to be done, we must make a correct appreciation of what the Commonwealth is and what it is not. It is not a political bloc, nor is it an economic bloc. Before dealing with the political attitude of members of our Commonwealth association one must say that anyone who has been present at meetings of Finance Ministers or Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth is bound to have marked the change in the outlook of Commonwealth countries, both old and new, in recent years.
The whole Commonwealth is now consciously multilateral in its outlook. That does not mean that each does not try to increase trade with Britain and with the other, both in volume and in value, and that we should not try to do the same. This trend was unmistakably indicated as long ago as 1961, in a statement issued by the Commonwealth of Australia which I should like to read to the House. It said:
Under the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement of 1957, the principle of material preference was retained. At the same time Australia gained"—
and I draw the attention of the House to that word "gained"—

the right to reduce preferences accorded to the United Kingdom to lower levels than those required under the Ottawa Agreements. This freedom has given Australia the room to manœuvre in negotiating trade agreements or material tariff concessions with other countries and to effect cost savings in industry.
The truth is, and we must recognise it, that the pattern of world trade has changed. It is now much more complex than the straight exchange that there used to be between raw materials and manufactures. The ambition of almost every Commonwealth country today, in addition to selling its food and raw materials, is to industrialise and sell its manufactured goods.
This is a big change and the emphasis is placed firmly, therefore, by every Commonwealth country on freedom to trade with all countries in all markets. The firm intention is to pursue these objectives through international organisations, particularly the G.A.T.T. and U.N.C.T.A.D., and the opportunities which present themselves in the Kennedy Round. Australia must find new outlets and markets, for instance in Japan. Canada must sell to the United States. Britain must sell in Europe and the African countries must sell to each other.
We must mark this change, otherwise we shall miss the chance of doing what ought to be done. In other words, the Commonwealth refuses nowadays to be an exclusive trading association. As long as we are realistic and accept this as a fact we can better concentrate on ways and means of increasing the volume and value of trade between Britain and the Commonwealth countries and, just as important, between the member countries themselves.
Much of the emphasis at the Prime Ministers' Conference last year was placed on the influence which Britain could exercise on behalf of others in attaining a freer flow of world trade and a greater recognition of the need of the advanced industrial countries to open their markets to the developing countries and to encourage investment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was able to follow this up in the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference and, later, I should like to ask the Prime Minister some questions about that.
The Prime Minister will remember that at the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference we were


able to get the nations there to accept a number of propositions in principle related to the advanced countries buying goods from the developing countries, to commodity arrangements, and to the employment of capital in these developing countries. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government have taken to follow up the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference both with the World Bank and with the United Nations.
I put before the House some of the main problems as I see them and the way in which Britain can most effectively help. The main ambition of the Asian and African countries must be to match food production to population. Unless they can do that, they will fail. I go a little further and put it in another way: by so doing, they will raise the whole level of activity in the great agricultural areas so that the purchasing power of the millions on the soil is increased and an internal market created.
There has been a scramble to industrialise in many countries of Asia and Africa which, in a number of cases, has unbalanced the economies of the countries concerned. I remember the concern Mr. Nehru expressed on several occasions and how very much he felt that the balance had been thrown too far one way and the importance of agricultural policies in India had been underestimated. A further ambition—this is particularly true of Africa—lies in the need to develop communications and sources of power for industrial expansion. When we were responsible for Britain's policies towards the development of the Commonwealth, we tried to concentrate and direct such resources as Britain had to these essential needs.
To secure these basic objectives of policy, my colleagues and I, particularly after the Montreal Conference in 1957, put education right in the front of our programme—education in the application of research, education in the art of administration, and the training of young people in all the Commonwealth countries. At the end of the day, it is applied knowledge which makes all the difference between success and failure for a developing nation. It is this which can convert malnutrition and inertia into vigour and self-reliance.
I have very much in mind some seemingly rather simple things which have

made an enormous difference, perhaps the whole difference, in the ability of countries in Asia and Africa to live well or to live on the verge of starvation. I have seen the results of the Japanese experiments in the culture of rice which has made an enormous difference and is capable of making a further enormous difference to every country in Asia and the Indian sub-Continent. But this knowledge has to be applied or it is useless. I remember one of my hon. Friends last year referring to an experiment, which I also have seen, in Malaysia where, by the breeding of fish, almost a miracle has been achieved and the numbers of fish increased beyond all knowledge. This is something which makes an enormous difference to the ability of people in South-East Asia to live well, because fish is one of their basic foods. So one could go on to mention the cultivation of cocoa in Ghana and the rest.
We started at the Montreal Conference in 1957 a modest but vital scheme of Commonwealth scholarships, education and training. We look to the Government to give full support to this scheme and to make available the resources which, last year, we had already pledged for the next five years ahead. It is essential that this programme be maintained, and I hope that the Prime Minister will tell us that that is being done.
The great want is for trained experts who can hand on their knowledge to many young Asians and Africans who are hungry for knowledge and can profit greatly from the instruction which they are given. In technical aid and assistance we provided about £175 million in 1963–64, more than double what it was seven years earlier. Do the Government intend to keep this at a high level, and, in particular, the provision of technicians and experts, because it is here that we are well able to contribute and here that both we and the Commonwealth countries get the best value for money?
I come now to two other matters which are fundamental to growth and the development of Commonwealth countries. The first is British investment in both the old and the new Commonwealth. I have wondered lately whether the Prime Minister understands how much reliance is placed on capital investment from Britain and the setback to development plans which will follow if the flow is


curtailed. He will know that Commonwealth countries follow our Commonwealth debates in the House very closely. They will remember particularly what he said in a corresponding debate last year when he urged that incentives should be given to private enterprise to cater for the industrial needs of the Commonwealth and to invest in the Commonwealth.
What have we got instead? We have the deterrents of the Corporation Tax and the abolition of the concessions for overseas trading corporations. I profoundly hope that the Prime Minister will tell us tonight—perhaps the Chancellor's announcement earlier today encourages our hope—of the Government's willingness to lessen the severe long-term effects of the present provisions of the Finance Bill on investment in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Edmund Dell: If the right hon. Gentleman considers that private investment in developing Commonwealth countries is so important, why did his Government take no initiative at all to prevent the level declining year by year?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall have to check on the figures for the past few years—I do not carry them in my head—but it is the fact that the figure of private investment in the Commonwealth is very high and some most valuable development projects are being financed by private enterprise all the time. It was our policy to encourage this. Is it this Government's policy? On the face of it, in the light of the present Finance Bill, it does not seem to be so.
In the context of the longer term, there is one suggestion which the Government should consider. The O.E.C.D. has examined a proposal for a scheme to insure overseas investment against political risks. The hope is that this will be a multilateral scheme and that it will be acceptable by the World Bank. Germany, the United States and Japan have gone ahead and instituted schemes of their own, and I think that these schemes are operating to the detriment of trading companies in Britain. There can be no doubt that trade follows investment and aid, and, if there is further delay, our country will suffer. I hope, therefore, that the Government will

seriously examine the possibility of adopting such an insurance scheme.
I attach enormous importance to the initiative which our Government were able to undertake last year at the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference in Geneva. The Prime Minister will recall the two most important conclusions. The first related to arrangements for stabilising commodity prices. Again, I remember how he urged the importance of this in his speech last year. Since then, we have seen the price of cocoa collapse. What initiative have the Government taken in respect of any commodity, and what proposals have they made in respect of cocoa in particular? An initiative should surely come from a Prime Minister who, when Leader of the Opposition, was so keen that these matters should be treated with the utmost urgency.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): A great start was made on this in the years immediately following the war, but is not the point that some of us, from that bench, were pressing for initiatives in this matter years ago—I can quote from debates in 1953—and the then Government did not begin to take any interest but were utterly opposed to international commodity agreements—apart from the continuation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which is a different thing—until the matter became controversial as a result of their decision to seek entry into the Common Market? Is it not true that one reason why no progress has been made on these issues is that nothing was done by the previous Government, who opposed it until 1963?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman cannot really say that. As he knows, there are other international agreements, the tin agreement and the coffee agreement, for instance; and we are not opposed and were never opposed to commodity agreements. But what I am saying is this. As the right hon. Gentleman, speaking from this place last year, pressed upon us that this problem was particularly urgent, why, when the cocoa price has collapsed, has there been no move whatever, so far as I know, by the British Government of which he is the head? In what other commodities has he taken any initiative?
Incidentally, I express great surprise, when we are talking about development overseas, at the absence of the right hon. Lady who is responsible. Apparently, she does not see fit to come to the Government Front Bench. I think that the Prime Minister might send for the right hon. Lady to be present and hear what the House feels about development overseas.
These are the things that matter: education and training, investment, and purchasing by the advanced countries, about which I hope that we shall hear more from the Prime Minister this evening and which are of enormous importance to the developing Commonwealth. I do not propose to spend more time on the machinery for facilitating Commonwealth co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Secretariat is getting under way and he hopes to complete the process at this Prime Ministers' Conference. The export committee for trade in the Commonwealth will be judged by results. I hope that it achieves them. I do not believe that the Commonwealth wants much more machinery. It has enough committees already, and now the Secretariat had better get on with the job.
As the Secretary of State said, there are endless possibilities for contacts between the peoples of the Commonwealth. I agree with him in attaching great importance to this. Last year, we launched the idea of a Commonwealth Foundation for the exchange of visits between professions within the Commonwealth. Has any more been done about that? We set up a Commonwealth Medical Council following the success of the medical conference, and it is to meet in Edinburgh later this year. A more far-reaching innovation in its effect would be the adoption of a Commonwealth court. There are two proposals here: first, a court of appeal over and above the courts of any member country which would sit in the different countries of the Commonwealth; second, a Commonweatlh court for the hearing and adjudicating of disputes between Commonwealth countries. I know that a number of hon. Members are attracted by this possibility and the question is certain to be raised in the debate.
There are the inter-Commonwealth contacts, from the Commonwealth Parlia-

mentary Association downwards. One cannot exaggerate the importance of the C.P.A., and I am glad that, this year, as a result of the additional funds which we made available last year, more Parliamentarians are able to visit each other in each other's countries. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of a consultative assembly or an assembly of Commonwealth Parliamentarians as a possible development for the future. I think that this requires a lot of thought. At this stage, I only ask him not to forget the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association when he is thinking in terms of future development.
I come now to an issue of crucial importance for the Commonwealth, for Europe, for our own country and for the whole Western world. Where do the economic and political interests of the Commonwealth lie? In these interests, of course, I include the interests of Britain. I should like briefly to consider each of the aspects in turn.
The first consideration lies in the size of the needs of the modern Commonwealth in terms of trade and investment. The market in Britain is of the greatest importance to the Commonwealth. We still import the greater part of Commonwealth raw materials and food and we are certainly the greatest consumer of Commonwealth goods. But 600 million people cannot find their living, much less a rising standard of living, in a market confined to 60 million. Two factors in particular militate against a heavy increase in Commonwealth exports to the United Kingdom. The first is our own agricultural output, which we cannot allow to decline and which we will be trying to increase, and the second is the fact that we ourselves are one of the most advanced manufacturing countries in the world.
Therefore, although I am certain that we can look forward in future years to a steady increase in the purchasing power of our people and that part of that would go to buy Commonwealth goods and that we shall see an increase in both value and volume of Commonwealth trade, nevertheless, all Commonwealth countries must look further afield if they are to earn the wealth which they require for their development.
New Zealand has a special problem which has to be met in any arrangements which are made for Britain to co-operate in Europe, but for the rest of the Commonwealth calculation of their future trading prospects must lead them to the conclusion that advantage lies for their countries in a unified European market pursuing outward-looking policies.
Then, again, there is investment—how is Britain to strengthen her economy most certainly and accumulate more wealth so that a growing share of it can be devoted to investment in the Commonwealth? It is becoming clearer and clearer, particularly after our recent experience with the aircraft industry and looking forward, as we must, to the manufacture of more and more complex machinery and the need to market it, that we simply cannot afford to ignore the advantages of being inside a market of 200 million consumers and more. The Commonwealth watches our chronic balance of payments problem with anxiety and the possibility of diminishing British investment with consternation. I believe that it is now as apparent to the Commonwealth as to us that, if we are to be a source of strength to the developing countries in the Commonwealth, we should most certainly be a part of a great European trading area, and this is the best way in which we can fulfil our future duty to the Commonwealth.
Perhaps the greatest anxiety—and this is most pronounced in the old Commonwealth—is that partnership in Europe, both economic and political, may dilute the enthusiasm of our people for the Commonwealth after all the long years in which we have been leading and directing its activities, which may impair our loyalty to the Commonwealth concept of a family relationship of nations who through common ties have built up a friendship which everyone wants to keep alive. So much of the support of this has always come from Britain.
I understand the fear but to yield to it is seriously to underrate two things; first, the ties of blood and, secondly, the British genius for political relations. I have no doubt whatever that we can combine membership of the European community with a healthy influence in the Commonwealth partnership, and we can do it

with ease and confidence and profit to all concerned. I therefore believe in the Commonwealth; I believe in a strong Britain and I believe in a united Europe and all are compatible and, what is more, all are necessary.
I hope that I have done something to supplement the review of the Commonwealth Secretary and something to widen the scope of the debate so that we may consider some of the larger questions of enormous importance to the whole Commonwealth and particularly to its developing members. I very much look forward to the debate which is to follow and I hope that it will be useful to the Prime Minister when he comes to his meeting in a week or two.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) both made wide-ranging speeches of great depth. They used the experience of their high offices in their speeches. I have much less experience and I also have much less time in which to make my speech. I do not intend in any way to attempt to answer the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, for they can be answered by the Prime Minister himself—questions about U.N.C.T.A.D., about education and all others of economic aid, etc. I want to make a compact speech based on two territories in the Commonwealth, both posing odd problems, one on the desk of the Colonial Secretary and one on the desk of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
I should like to take the second first, because Rhodesia is of enormous importance at this moment. This is a problem taxing the minds of all Africans. The Leader of the Opposition said that he pays no attention to the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four which has been meeting in Lusaka and when I consider the composition, with a Mali chairman, a Soviet delegate, a Venezuelan, a Tanzanian and others, some well-disposed and others not so well-disposed. I also perhaps do not pay so much attention to what they have been saying. I get much advice about Southern Rhodesia and for a few moments I


want to think aloud and to give my right hon. Friend what little benefit I can from my thinking aloud.
There is no clear solution to this problem. I can see a way out of the problem of the other territory which I want to discuss, Mauritius, although it is not easy; but I cannot see any clear answer for Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend spoke of "a just and lasting solution" and also of "patience and negotiation", but we have been speaking of those for a long time. The Government have been getting plenty of advice, for example from Jomo Kenyatta, whom I respect very much, but he has had a different experience in Kenya, and speaking at that distance from Rhodesia the problem is not as easy as might be imagined. The difficulty in Rhodesia is unique. Each place has its different problems, but those in Rhodesia cannot be compared with the problems in Kenya or Ghana or any other African territory, where there is a mixed community of white and black. There are 240,000 whites, at least four times the number in Kenya. Rhodesia has been self-governing for 40 years, while Kenya was never self-governing. Rhodesia has a white police force and a white army and possesses jet aircraft, including bombers. All this puts the question in a special position, and when one speaks of a possible solution, one has to remember that if the white population does not like it, there is no way of enforcing a solution.
The problem is not quite so hard as that of South Africa, but the position is that we are faced with many Europeans who are our own kith and kin, and who do not wish to hand over their political power. I have met Zimbabwe leaders like George Nyandoro, who is now in Tanganyika, or Nelson Samkange, in London with others. All of these are devotees of black nationalism, and wish soon rather than later to have a State in which one man has one vote; a State modelled on Kenya, Ghana, or Nigeria, where the Europeans will be technicians and advisers, as they have been in other parts of Africa.
However, I do not see how in the near future, with these opposed divisions, we can expect anything in the way of a just and lasting solution for all the sections of the population in Rhodesia. I should like the Prime Minister to say how the Govern-

ment intend to approach the problem. I understand that Mr. Johnston, the High Commissioner, is in communication with the Government and that messages are moving backwards and forwards. I should like to know what plans we are putting forward, for despite close study of the problem, I cannot find any easy solution which will satisfy the Africans.
The view of the Africans is that a conference should be called immediately. They say that it does not matter if the white Rhodesians do not come. They say that a constitution should be made at this conference and the white Rhodesians should be warned that we would use force to impose the constitution. Force means invading. I cannot imagine any Government of this country invading and using force against 250,000 people in Rhodesia. I frankly do not contemplate my own Government taking such a course with helicopters and paratroopers. Perhaps we can be told what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have in mind. I cannot visualise our engaging in civil war on the lines of what happened in Algeria. I do not think that any Government which took that course would get the support of the country.
I do not know what is in the mind of Mr. Smith. He blows sometimes hot and sometimes cold, but he is certainly now the master of the country with some 50 seats in the legislature. I am convinced that if Mr. Smith did not satisfy his supporters, he would go the way of those before him; people like Field, Garfield Todd and Whitehead. The difficulty in Rhodesia is that the Europeans there do not wish to take up the positions that were adopted by Europeans in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. I shall be happy to listen to anybody who can tell me how to persuade them to do so.
If Mr. Smith goes for a unilateral declaration of independence, what do Her Majesty's Government do? He could be outlawed, and I presume that he would be by all the Commonwealth countries and in the United Kingdom. I suppose that he would get support from Portugal and South Africa. Are we to see a sort of Common Market south of the Zambesi, with Mozambique, Rhodesia, Angola and down to the Union? This is a possibility which we might have to consider later. Presumably we would apply economic


sanctions and refuse to buy Rhodesian tobacco. The Rhodesians would then cut off power to Zambia—or would they?
I am told that we should call their bluff. This is a very difficult game, because Zambia could lose her copper exports in such a bluff. The City of London could sever loans to Rhodesia and we would not allow Rhodesia access to our money markets. Rhodesia would then be crippled economically and financially, with a visible lowering of standards of living of the Europeans. This is the warning given to Rhodesian politicians by ourselves and others, such as their business community.
I have not met Mr. Smith and I do not know whether he is as tough as he is supposed to be. He talks about "going it alone" and some people believe that he would. What is imperative is that Her Majesty's Government must be quite clear and definite in telling Mr. Smith and the Southern Rhodesians what are the choices facing them. The public should know quite clearly also, so that if and when something serious does happen they will know why and how it happened. I hope no sort of catastrophe does take place, but it may. The African leaders say to me, "If you cannot settle this yourselves give it to somebody else." Zambia or Tanzania could not successfully invade. I have heard it suggested that the Americans and the Soviets might get together and jointly settle this problem. I should very much like to know what is in the mind of Her Majesty's Government about this particular situation.
To turn to Mauritius. I do not want to see Mauritius go the way of British Guiana. This possibility was touched upon by a former Secretary of State for the Colonies, now Lord Boyd, in this Chamber 10 years ago when we were discussing the polyglot nature of the population in Mauritius. There are about 700,000 people with varying percentages Hindu, Muslim, Chinese, Creoles and a small minority of Franco-Mauritian whites. I know something about Mauritius, because I have known their political leaders since 1950, many of them intimately. The Labour Party in Mauritius is a microcosm of the

society, and they pick their constituency candidates on an ethnic basis. Hindu, Chinese, Moslem and Creole are apportioned during the election campaigns to the different divisions as party candidates. We need to get away from this idea which the Sunday Telegraph and other newspapers have put before us lately, of a Labour Party which is Hindu; and which will simply crush any minorities when in power after independence.
In Mauritius the Labour Party has been for some time the majority party, but at the moment there is a National coalition. An emergency was declared after rioting. British soldiers have been sent in to keep the peace. We heard at Question Time last week in this Chamber about a "Social Democratic" party. There is no such thing. There is the Parti Mauricien which is a party of the bourgeoisie, which represented the sugar millers, the bankers, shipping companies, plantation owners and the like. Their leader is Mr. Koenig, and his party was essentially a white party.
In the late 1950's they felt that to combat the appeal of the multi-racial Labour Party they should take a coloured or Creole man on their platform. So they adopted a young lawyer called Monsieur Duval. They have financed him and he has been the liaison to invite Members of this House to visit Mauritius and see local conditions. Over the past months allegations have been made, with some evidence, about his demagogic activities, on a platform leading to violence. Under the banner of the Parti Mauricien, by means of speeches splitting and dividing the people, he has done much damage. I would advise him, since he is a junior member of the all-party coalition Government, to be more loyal to his seniors, and more helpful to his coalition comrades. If he did this I think we might see less public dissension and island tension, and less need in the future to invite British soldiers to restore order to this beautiful island.
If he cannot behave thus, I would advise that the Governor asked him to leave the coalition government. Before constitutional talks begin in September in London, we need to have a much more balanced society in the island with a well-informed public opinion. Monsieur Duval and people like him must


come out into the open and be in genuine opposition, and no longer a wooden horse inside the coalition.
I see a coalition Government, after the talks in September, consisting of the Labour Party plus the Muslim Party led by Razak Mohammed and others, line the independent bloc, who would take over government after independence. This I hope would be granted in the summer of next year. We could possibly have an agreement whereby in the unfortunate event of any difficulties following independence, the Mauritian Government could call in, as it has at this time, English soldiers to help with defence and external affairs.
I do not believe we need anticipate in Mauritius the sort of situation which arose in British Guiana. I think it is possible that we could clear up a lot of misunderstandings at our talks in September. A definite date for independence should be fixed for July in the summer of next year. If people in the island know what their future is, and thus have a future to aim at, I think they will buckle to, and make an effort to work out a future just as any other former Colony has done. Leave them in the confusion they are in now and we shall experience much worse conditions, setting section against section of society, Creole against Indian and the like. I am certain that no one wants this. It is possible to avoid disaster if our talks go well in September, when we can set an independence date for Mauritius in the summer of 1966.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: A debate of this sort, designed to cover the whole of the Commonwealth and the Colonial Territories, is bound to range very widely and I fear that I shall be at fault in dotting from one Colony to another, like other hon. Members. I would like to deal with some of the Colonies which I have visited myself and for which I had some responsibility when I was at the Colonial Office in the last Government.
First, British Guiana. I do not understand why the Government seem to be dragging their feet in convening an independence conference for this Colony. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Duncan Sandys) gave a

very clear undertaking at the 1963 conference that after the elections held in the Colony last autumn a conference would be held to settle any remaining constitutional issues and to fix a date for independence. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in his opening speech this afternoon, seemed to repudiate that undertaking. I hope that I misunderstood him. I would like some clarification. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could be told that this point has been raised and asked to give some clarification later.
The timetable we had in mind at that time was a conference this summer or autumn leading to independence in the early months of next year. Seven months have now elapsed since the British Guiana elections and the new Coalition Government, I think by common consent, has governed fairly, firmly and impartially as between the races, which is very important indeed. It is the best Government that British Guiana has had for many a long year. There is a new atmosphere of confidence in the Colony and I know of no valid reason for the delay in convening a conference.
There are many good reasons for "getting a move on". If independence is not granted, the people of Guiana will have a grievance to exploit. I am afraid that either Dr. Jagan will pillory Mr. Burnham as being ineffective in submitting tamely to the delay—we all know that the charge of being a "stooge" of the imperial Power is very damaging to any nationalist leader—or, to counter that, Mr. Burnham may himself have to become awkward and anti-British.
I know both Mr. Burnham and Dr. Jagan quite well, and I should say that, if he wanted to be difficult, Mr. Burnham could be just as difficult as Dr. Jagan, and possibly more so, because he is more efficient. I believe, therefore, that this is the moment to move and that any further delay would be dangerous both because it might lead to further racial trouble in British Guiana and because it would be harmful to our future relations with the Government of British Guiana, which, hitherto, have been very good.
May I also ask the Prime Minister—perhaps a message could be passed to him—what the Governor's view is about


convening an early independence conference? I do not know, of course, but I should be very surprised if the Governor's advice about the holding of an early conference was contrary to my own. If so, the Colonial Secretary is taking a very grave responsibility in disregarding the advice of the man on the spot. So far, Mr. Burnham has responded in a way that Dr. Jagan never did to the need for statesmanship in British Guiana, particularly on this issue between the races. It seems to me that it is now up to the Colonial Secretary to provide statesmanship from Britain, too, by bringing uncertainty to an end and by granting independence to a Colony which would have had it many years ago but for the racial and ideological excesses of the People's Progressive Party.
The fumbling indecision—I cannot describe it in any other way—of the Government may have even graver consequences in Aden and South Arabia than in British Guiana. We have been faced in Aden with a serious and deteriorating security and political situation for some time, which the Government have been unable to resolve. For months, the Cairo-backed terrorism has included grenade and bazooka attacks upon innocent people. A young English schoolgirl and three British Service men have been killed. Over 40 Service men have been wounded. A senior Aden police officer and several Arab civilians have been murdered. So much for the security side in Aden. It is not a very good record.
On the constitutional side, the constitutional conference, which the Colonial Secretary announced and then had to cancel because no one would come to it, has been replaced by a Commission. I fear that nobody loves the Commission except the right hon. Gentleman, who dreamt it up. The Chief Minister of Aden has described it as a "mockery" and has said that his Government will boycott it. He thinks that it will worsen the situation and may well lead to increased violence. Mr. Luqman's party has also said that it will boycott the Commission. Mr. Girgirah's party takes the same line, and so did E1 Asnag and the P.S.P., who describe it as a "phoney Commission".

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): What about the Federal Ministers?

Mr. Fisher: I will come to them in a moment. The Commission is rejected by every single political party in Aden.
To come to the Federal Ministers, I must honestly say to the Colonial Secretary—and I am surprised that he mentioned this—that anyone who is so naïve as to think that the Federal Government and the rulers of the Protectorate States have any use for this Commission, whatever they may say publicly, cannot have studied the situation very carefully and cannot know very well the people about whom he is talking.
If the Commission is just a piece of window dressing, and has been devised simply because no one would come to a conference, I cannot see the point of it. If, on the other hand, it is meant seriously, I believe that it is an abdication of the Secretary of State's own responsibilities. He already knows all the facts and views about the situation, and he does not need an international commission, or any other commission, to instruct him in this matter.
I believe, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham believed, that it is almost always a mistake to appoint commissions to advise on problems of this kind. If we publish its findings, our own eventual decisions are prejudged or prejudiced. If we do not publish them, suspicion and resentment is aroused in the territory concerned about what we are doing and whether we are conforming to the commission's recommendations.
We do not yet know the final composition of the Commission, but we on this side of the House think that it is a great mistake and a most dangerous precedent to include foreigners upon it. I would take that view even if Aden were only an ordinary Colony, but it is not. It includes the Aden base, which is an absolutely essential staging post for the Far East and a vital element in Commonwealth defence. I am amazed that the Government should invite outside advice on such an important British interest. It is obvious that we cannot divorce the future of the base from the future of Aden. Therefore, the Commission will, in effect, advise the Secretary of State on what he should do about the future of the base.
I was not clear what the Colonial Secretary meant at Question Time the


other day when he talked about "negotiating" the future of the base. I thought this a dangerous and quite unnecessary present to give to Cairo and to the extreme Arab nationalists. It was an undertaking which we on this side of the House were always most careful not to give when we were in government. I should be surprised if the local people really want us to leave the base. Certainly, when I was there, almost exactly a year ago, they were virtually unanimous in wanting us to stay because of the great economic importance of the base for the prosperity of Aden. It is stupid to give away cards before play has even begun, and it is a mistake to send out this Commission or, indeed, to have ever appointed it.
If the Secretary of State cannot get an immediate solution of the problem, it would be wiser to play it long. There is no great hurry. We have not promised independence until 1968. If the moment is not now propitious, we have time in hand. But, whatever the outcome, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the treaty relationship which we have with the Federal Government and which can be altered only by agreement.

Mr. James Johnson: We have heard some scathing comment about the use of commissions. How did right hon. and hon. Members opposite, when they were in power, find out the views of the local population, other than have a referendum, without appointing a commission to advise them?

Mr. Fisher: A better way to do it is to go to the territory concerned oneself and study the position at first hand and then confer with the leaders and try to make progress by suggesting solutions and getting a compromise. That is the traditional way in which the Colonial Office has always worked. It is a revolutionary step to appoint a Commission of this kind on this sort of problem and to include foreigners from outside the Commonwealth on it. It is totally without precedent.
I hope that when he is considering these issues the Secretary of State will back our friends—it is often quite a good policy—and will support the authority of the Federal Government, which is the

legal Government of the Federation of South Arabia.
There is a smaller Colony nearer home which has been in the public eye in the last few months and about whose predicament I must also be a little critical, namely, Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and I visited the Rock not very long ago. We found the people very loyal to Britain, but not very happy, which was scarcely surprising, because after seven months of almost siege conditions at the hands of Spain, after a ministerial visit by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, after a tough-sounding White Paper and after many expressions of sympathy from Her Majesty's Government, nothing effective has been done to help Gibraltar, which is in very grave economic difficulties through no fault of its own.
Apart from totally ineffectual diplomatic protests to the Spanish Government, and an unpublished Report, not yet acted on, by a Colonial Office economic adviser, the Government have done precisely nothing to protect and sustain the interests of the Colony, for which we in Britain have a direct and absolute responsibility.
I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) in his references to the Island of Mauritius. This island has been in the news lately owing to the recent disturbances, and it will be in the news again when the Constitutional Conference is convened in, I believe, September. I should like to congratulate the Government—I am glad to be able to say something nice to them in a somewhat hostile speech—on their prompt despatch of troops from Aden; it only shows how important the Aden base is. That action had a steadying effect, and order has been restored in the Colony.
Potentially, however, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that this is a difficult problem owing to the racial composition of the population, with most of the Indians, who are now in the majority, demanding independence, and most of the rest—called the general population—afraid of Indian domination and wishing to retain a continuing association with Britain as a safeguard for minority interests.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's strictures upon Mr. Duval were very strong and somewat unfair. This gentleman, who is the Minister of Housing in Mauritius, represents very genuine fears there, and his views are entitled to serious consideration. Some of his supporters, I know—perhaps he himself, also—favour the integration of the island with Great Britain on the lines once proposed for Malta. I understand the attractions of that proposal in Mauritius, but, with respect to their views, and quite apart from the inevitable frustrations which representatives of Colonial Dependencies would suffer if they came to Westminster, I do not think that this idea of integration—if integration means what I think it means—is really a starter from our point of view here. I think that it is right to say, before such ideas catch on too much, that in the evenly balanced Parliaments of 1950 and 1951, and even more so today, it would not be tolerable to the House of Commons or to the people of Britain to have the Government of this country virtually decided by the votes of people from overseas territories. I therefore hope that this idea will not be pursued in Mauritius. It would not be helpful either to them or to us to pursue that possibility.
That is not to say, of course, that it would be impossible to work out some other form of association with Britain, if that were what the people of Mauritius wished. There are many variations on the theme. We can go from a Channel Islands type of solution right up to the treaty relationship which Western Samoa has made with New Zealand. There are several variations and degrees of association which can be virtually tailored to suit the circumstances of a particular Colony. Whatever the eventual decision, I hope that the present Coalition Government in Mauritius will continue for as long as possible, and that its leaders will try, before the constitutional meeting in London, to agree among themselves on a compromise solution and, where they cannot agree, at least to identify the points of difference that will have to be resolved in London.
It will not be an easy conference. It will be a difficult conference, but there have been difficult conferences for other

territories in the past—it is not insuperable—and we have usually managed to resolve them in the end. I have great faith in the skill, the experience and the expertise in these matters of the Colonial Office in devising compromises between opposing hopes and fears.
I turn very briefly from this little island off the coast of Africa to one of the great independent countries of the Commonwealth—Kenya—from which I returned only three weeks ago. I was immensely encouraged by that visit. It seemed very clear to me that President Kenyatta is in control in Kenya and that his Government are ruling fairly and firmly. Internationally, Kenya is genuinely unaligned—we must make that point. We must not claim that it is pro-West, or yield to fears that it may turn Communist. That is not the case. There is no disposition at all to flirt with Communism. The rejection by Kenya of the Russian arms gift and the take-over of the Lumumba Institute, both of which took place while I was there, are clear evidence of that.
There is an atmosphere of political stability, and the new policy document, "African Socialism," produced while I was there, was widely welcomed as the blueprint for Kenya's future development. It is a moderate and pragmatic document. It envisages a mixed economy, but with nationalisation—I hasten to say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite—confined only to the public utilities.
If I may revert to a point I tried to make at Question Time today, I found same reservations about the future of the Land Settlement Scheme. These reservations were widely held by leaders of European opinion as well as by leaders of African opinion. From Kenya's point of view this money is not being spent as productively as they think it could be. It compensates Europeans who wish to leave, but it does not create any new wealth or bring new land into production. Most people were in favour of phasing it over a longer period—perhaps eight or 10 years—and using some of the money available from Britain for genuine land development.
Naturally, compassionate and security cases would be bought out as before, and many people thought that it would also be a good thing to prime the Land Bank.
Those farmers who want to stay on are taking out Kenya citizenship, and making a conscious commitment and identification of their interests with Kenya's. They are most welcome to stay. It is thought there that about 25 per cent. of the original number of European farmers who were there some years ago fall into tills category and would stay permanently in Kenya. I felt that Anglo-Kenya relations are good, and likely to remain so.
I believe that only one thing could seriously prejudice our relations with Kenya, and it applies to the other African countries of the Commonwealth to just the same extent. I speak of the future of Rhodesia, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his opening speech. This is certainly the most divisive and emotional issue facing the Commonwealth, particularly the African Commonwealth, today. Even the leaders of African opinion cannot really understand how very small our power to influence Rhodesia really is. Even when one explains that there is not a single British official or soldier or policeman throughout the whole of Rhodesia, one is still met with doubt—indeed, one is met, as I think the right hon. Gentleman has found, almost with incredulity—when one says that we cannot decide what happens there.
Personally, like every hon. Member, I wish the Commonwealth Secretary all possible luck with the Rhodesian negotiations. He will need it. I do not envy him his task, or his grave responsibility—to the Commonwealth as well as to Rhodesia. I only wish that I could feel more optimistic than I confess I do about the outcome. A unilateral declaration, although it may not be imminent now, is likely later, I fear, if the negotiations fail. I hope that Mr. Smith will not play this very short, but I fear that he will not—probably cannot—play it very long.
I believe—and I hope to goodness that I am wrong—that the maximum concessions which the Government of Rhodesia can make would not be enough to meet the views of Her Majesty's Government, still less of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Indeed, I doubt whether they would be enough to meet the views of the Opposition in this House, either. I am sure that they would not be enough to meet the views of the Commonwealth.
This is really what worries me. I hope that I am wrong.
I am not informed about the details of the negotiations and, naturally, I do not ask to be. I hope that there is a chink of light here that I have not been able to see; but in the final analysis, when all the chips are down, we cannot split the Commonwealth. If, in the end, we have to choose—and I hope that the choice will not have to be made—between Rhodesia and the Commonwealth, there can be only one choice, and we all know what it is.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: In August of last year I visited Hong Kong by invitation. I left London Airport at 10.15 on Tuesday forenoon, 4th August, and on Wednesday evening at 5.15, I touched down at Hong Kong Airport. One of the interesting features of our relationship with Hong Kong is that the Colony is very near, representing only 17 hours of flying time.
I was invited there because in various Parliaments I always sought to represent the interests of Hong Kong, particularly in housing; and also because I went there with two other hon. Members in 1956. As a result of making the two visits, I was able to note the immense physical changes that had taken place, but the main change is the change in thinking, which I found very widely spread.
My visit was the longest ever paid to Hong Kong by any Member of Parliament. One of the little grievances of the people there is that the visits of Ministers—and I am not referring to any particular part of the House—have been too short. They have a feeling that this is helping to give them a sense of separation which they themselves would like to see closed. I know that there are difficulties surrounding the claims now being voiced in Hong Kong, which I found voiced at many meetings.
I spoke to larger meetings than I have ever seen in this country—larger than the meetings I got at my election. At one of the meetings a charge was imposed on those who came to hear me of 10 Hong Kong dollars per head. That was very flattering, because that represents 15s. in our money. I never had such an experience before—

Sir Harmer Nicholls: I must warn the hon. Gentleman that in


theatrical parlance the test of whether one is a draw comes when one makes the return visit.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has not quite been with us, or he would know that I was referring to my return visit.
That was a very interesting meeting, and I should point out that a very fine meal accompanied it. That is an unusual feature of our meetings. Of course, it may have been the dinner that the people were paying for, and not the speaker, but there was a very big audience indeed, the meeting being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Association.
During my visit, I had the opportunity of hearing a wide range of opinion in Hong Kong. I had a meeting with the Governor, I met the Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries and I met a host of other bodies. I spoke with them on the major theme of my visit. There is growing up in Hong Kong the feeling that it should now have some political say in its own destiny.
When I came to this House 20 years ago, we used to claim that Hong Kong was the window of democracy in the Far East. The fact is that Hong Kong is a Crown dictatorship. It may be benevolent, it may even be beneficent, but nevertheless it is a Colony where those who live and work in it have no say in what it does. Therefore, the claim is being made in Hong Kong that they now should have some say in the Government of the Colony.
It is worth noting that Hong Kong is now in the position when, within a few years, the great majority of its people will be Commonwealth citizens. At present, the number of Commonwealth citizens in Hong Kong is less than 50 per cent., something like 48 per cent., but with a birth rate of 29 per cent. and death rate of 4 per cent. it is obvious that within a few years Commonwealth citizenship in Hong Kong will dominate. That will enforce the claims that its people now make.
I spoke to a wide variety of meetings, all of them on a political theme, and I have with me the manifesto of one of the organisations under whose auspices I

spoke. I have many manifestos, but in the short time at my disposal I cannot introduce hon. Members to all of them. I am certain that my present audience will recognise the language of this manifesto as being language which they have heard before.
I shall read only the opening sentence of this manifesto of the Hong Kong Democratic Self-Government Party. The first paragraph states:
Our Party wants to establish a fully elective Legislative Council.
I have been told that that is quite impossible, for the simple reason that Hong Kong has two very good friends. According to one's point of view, one of them is too near and the other is too far away. Between those two interested parties. I have been assured by persons of authority that we must not say too much about elections in Hong Kong.
I might, however, note in passing that in Hong Kong today, the Government, under the Governor with a personnel of 40 staff, has full responsibility for Hong Kong and the welfare of its people. The United States Embassy, with 600 personnel, has no responsibility whatever. As far as I can gather, a good many of those 600 do not sit on office stools.
From various Hong Kong business men, I gathered that some of the jobs of those 600 were to investigate the buying and selling by business men in Hong Kong. This is an interference that we must notice, because it is bitterly resented by Hong Kong business men in the Colony. They are asked to produce their books. If they refuse to produce them, any trade which they have with the United States is promptly stopped. That is a type of interference that we in this Parliament should notice and should not accept.
Because of that sort of thing, there is building up in Hong Kong today the view, not only amongst ordinary working people, but at business level, that there is too much interference from outside by those who ought not to be intering. The people of Hong Kong therefore think that the time has come when they should have a closer say in their own affairs than they have now. Therefore, their demand is for a fully elective Legislative Council.
On foreign affairs, the Hong Kong Democratic Self-Government Party concedes the right of Great Britain to represent Hong Kong in all matters affecting foreign nations. That may transfer to us any future difficulties into which they fall, but, nevertheless, we will not quarrel with that attitude.
On taxation, they feel that a distinction should be made between earned and unearned income which is not being made today. The total amount charged on what we might call Income Tax, which includes Income Tax as we know it, estate tax and another tax the name of which escapes me, represents on average £6 per head. When one sees the level of living, the type of housing, and so on, which can be seen in Hong Kong today, one is inclined to conclude that the £6 per head, if it were investigated closely, would show a level of taxation for the very rich in Hong Kong which is far too low and which is, therefore, provoking the feeling in Hong Kong that there should be a tax not only on earned income, but also on unearned income.
Hong Kong also has a health policy to introduce a free medical service for all inhabitants, and in education the desire that every child should get a free education. That is not the situation today. It should be a matter of serious thought for every one of us in the House of Commons to realise that in this flourishing British Colony there are children who are not getting any education and far too many children who have to pay for the education that they are getting.

Mr. Peter Blaker: Would not the hon. Member agree that the population of Hong Kong at the end of the war was something like half a million and that it is now approaching 4 million—in other words, that it has multiplied nearly eight times? Would he not concede that in view of that, the Hong Kong Government have done some remarkable things in housing, education, and so on?

Mr. Rankin: The population in Hong Kong is now 3,739,000. I recognise that the Government have been doing a good deal for Hong Kong. I hope that I have not led anyone to think otherwise. I

had a very kindly welcome from the Governor when I had the opportunity of a private session with him. One must, however, realise that it is now 20 years since the war finished and there has been the growth of too many private schools. Even admitting what has been done, public education has not grown sufficiently to provide, as it should be providing, for all the boys and girls in Hong Kong.
The manifesto then criticises the legal system in Hong Kong and wants to see that legal system acting in accordance with the principles of British justice. I am certain that there can be no objection to that most laudable desire. These are merely some of the items in the manifesto to which I had the privilege of speaking, and supporting, in Hong Kong last August.
There is one matter in particular among the many which were brought to my attention to which I should like briefly to refer. It came to my notice through the representative of the International Transport Workers' Federation. He was Mr. Ewen Macdonald, a fellow Scot, from Stornoway, who was in Hong Kong to try to deal with the lack of trade union organisation in the Colony, having been released for that purpose by the National Union of Seamen.
I had two meetings with Mr. Macdonald, who told me of the great difficulties that he encountered in getting on to ships, some of them owned by British shipping companies like the Blue Funnel Line, the Glen Line, the Ben Line, Shell Tankers, the City Line and the Bank Line. There are a number of others. He regretted that in the case of some of the British shipping companies he, a trade union official from Britain, with the backing of the International Transport Workers' Federation, was refused permission to study the conditions under which seamen were sailing from Hong Kong.
Mr. Macdonald has pointed out to me in a covering letter that while in 1954 24,000 seamen signed on in ships in the Colony's marine office, the figure for last year was 40,000. The point is that this increase in the number of seamen signing on in Hong Kong is having an adverse effect on the number of seamen who are being employed here in Britain and in other countries.
The reason for that is the abnormally low level of wages in Hong Kong. For example, one of the shipping lines—I shall not name it because it is a British company—pays its assistant stewards 270 Hong Kong dollars. That is the payment for an entire voyage, which works out at £16 17s. 6d. for a trip which may last six months or more. This is a well-known British shipping company. Provisions are supplied by the ship, but £16 17s. 6d. is not the wage which the steward collects, because he is signed on by an individual on behalf of the ship, and that individual collects a percentage of his wage.
In addition, instead of the money being paid direct to the seaman who earns it, it is paid to the bos'n or some other official in the ship, who in turn collects a percentage of the wage for doing the job of receiving the money and paying it out as the seaman needs it. The result at the moment is that many of these men, having completed a six months' job, have no wages to draw at the end of that time. This has led to tremendous discontent. Fortunately, after 15 years this report has been produced and it was given to me just before I left. It shows that the Government of Hong Kong are finally taking action to put an end to this scandalous state of affairs.
I am certain that everyone in this House will do his best to ensure that these conditions no longer exist. As my hon. Friend told me in answer to a Question, the Governor hopes that by October of this year this wicked system, under which men are signed on for ships in Hong Kong, will have passed away for ever.
I have spoken for a little longer than I intended. I could have said a great deal more, had the time been more opportune. I have tried to present, I hope with fairness, what I saw and heard in Hong Kong, and I am glad to be able to say in my concluding words that one reform which I am sure everyone in the House will welcome will come into effect in October of this year.

7.22 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I want to interpret brevity more narrowly than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) did, and I propose to make only two comments on his speech. The

hon. Gentleman underrated the political realities of a Colony like Hong Kong in the political world of today. In considering, too, the possibility of Hong Kong advancing towards self-Government, with the logical result that in the end that must mean self-rule, the hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that constitutionally a large part of Hong Kong is only leased, and therefore there can be no question of our attempting to set up a sovereign State without the most drastic diplomatic repercussions.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman spoke at length, and I am making only two fairly non-controversial comments on his speech.

Mr. Rankin: I quoted from only one manifesto in which a request was made for an elected Legislative Council, but that was not the general demand. It was merely for a form of representation.

Sir F. Bennett: Whether the hon. Gentleman was quoting from one document or not, that was the tenor of his speech.
Secondly, in almost every argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward about improving conditions, he reversed his earlier remarks that we ought to allow Hong Kong to manage its own affars to a greater extent than it did at the present time. Everything that he said meant that we ought to interfere more in their affairs than we do at the moment.
I should like now to discuss the Rhodesia negotiations which the Colonial Secretary touched on very carefully and well earlier this afternoon. I have only two short points to make on this subject. First, I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that the Government were going into these negotiations with a genuine wish for success. I say this in no contentious spirit. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to say that at every opportunity, because there is a certain amount of suspicion in Rhodesia that these negotiations are not being carried out with a view to finding a solution, but with a view to carrying things smoothly through the coming Prime Ministers' Conference. I am not imputing that to the right hon. Gentleman, but that suspicion exists, and therefore the more he can emphasise that he is not


going into these negotiations as a tactical device, which I am sure he is not, but is doing so with a view to obtaining a genuine settlement, the better it will be for the success of his efforts, in which we all wish him well.
There was only one point on which I differed from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. He said that we should again give the Rhodesians a riot warning as to the consequences of any U.D.I. I think that both sides are now clear on the subject. The Government have made abundantly clear what the consequences of such action will be, as have the Opposition. Now, since Mr. Smith can be replaced only by somebody more extreme, it does no good to repeat the warnings which have been issued. It does not help the possibility of reaching a settlement. The Rhodesians are well aware of the situation, and it does not help to repeat the various threats which have been made.
I am sure that the Rhodesians appreciate that under the present Government the best chance for these negotiations to continue is for them to stop making attacks on this country's intentions with regard to bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. In other words, there should be mutual restraint in the issuing of warnings of all kinds while the negotiations are proceeding.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend's comments could well be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) who rather suggested that he was not quite sure what Mr. Smith would say in the future, but the Government were against it, the Opposition were against it, and the Commonwealth was against it. If my hon. Friend could send out the message that we would look with sympathy at whatever Mr. Smith said, instead of prejudging it before he has said it, I think that it would be of great benefit.

Sir F. Bennett: I hope that with that thought in mind my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) will read my speech to learn what I think about this matter. Threats from either side do not help, and one should not prejudge any negotiations.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. The first of these

are the Indo-Pakistan crises which have occurred recently. We must all commend Her Majesty's Government for the initiative they have shown, particularly through the two High Commissioners on the spot, who made great efforts to prevent the local fighting escalating into something much more serious. We must all hope, particularly as the Rann of Kutch is going to be under water any moment now, that the fighting over this rather isolated area will cease, if only because there is nothing left to fight about because it is not visible. Yet we would make a grave mistake if we thought that we could treat in isolation each outbreak of trouble between India and Pakistan. To do so is rather like ignoring the fact that there is a centre of infection in the body which manifests itself in boils from time to time, and thinking that it is possible to overcome the basic difficulty by treating one boil at a time.
Although one is in danger of being boring by repeating it, I have to say once again that we can never prevent these difficulties cropping up from time to time on this basis. One day they will get out of hand, and a really dangerous situation will arise unless we deal with the question of Kashmir. I have visited the Indo - Pakistan sub - continent several times, and it is not possible to go anywhere without that topic being raised at some time during the conversation on any subject. It may seem unreal, boring, and harly worth while, but nations and peoples do not behave logically in these matters. There are certain emotive things which may not seem important to other nations, but which are very important to those concerned. Therefore, although it is wearisome constantly to say this, I hope that when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference comes along, even if it has to be behind the scenes and quite unofficial, fresh attempts will be made to reach a compromise over Kashmir—a development which, for a few fleeting moments, seemed capable of attainment earlier. No greater contribution could be made by this Conference if that one result alone were to come out of it.
I stress its importance not just because of the need to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan but because I am convinced that at present the whole political


situation in Asia, and any question of a common western aim, is being disturbed by the quarrel, right outside the borders of India and Pakistan. In the first place, we know that General Ayub Khan's Government—never has a Government been less inclined towards Communism and fellow travellers—just because of the frustration they feel, rightly or wrongly, over the question of Kashmir, are drawing increasingly closer to Red China, and with every step they take tension grows between them and India.
Now, in respect of completely different quarrels overseas, India and Pakistan are beginning to express views based not on the realities of the situation but upon which party in such a quarrel supports their position over Kashmir. We have seen this in Malaysia and in Indonesia. In that situation Pakistan, who would otherwise be on our side, is sitting on the fence. She is doing this because she does not want to risk Indonesia's not supporting her case on Kashmir. Thus, the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia is being affected by the dispute over Kashmir. Wherever trouble arises in that part of the world India and Pakistan hesitate before taking up a definite line, according to whether they think that they will win or lose support on this subject.
I do not apologise for emphasising this. I know that it is difficult for the Government to do anything about it, but my right hon. Friend took initiatives in the past with some success, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman, with some hope, that just as we did something useful over the Rann of Kutch he should try to extend his influence and do something in regard to the wider question, for the benefit of all.
I end with the only contentious note in my speech. I was very worried, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, about British Guiana. There we are playing with possible fire in the most dangerous way if we give the impression that we are stalling on the promise of independence, or any of the pledges and undertakings that we have recently given. Those who know this territory know that comparatively small things—a statement in this House or an unfortunate article in a newspaper—are sufficient to start up the trouble all over again.
If the Commonwealth Secretary does not know it, the Colonial Secretary will: at present there is considerable suspicion—I do not know whether it is right or wrong—that Her Majesty's Government are trying to stall on the question of independence.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does not my hon. Friend agree that nothing is more necessary to British Guiana than stability, and that nothing is more likely to achieve stability for British Guiana than early independence.

Sir F. Bennett: I agree. At this stage, when we have not only stability but a Government which are making really genuine attempts—attempts which can be seen to be genuine—to get rid of racial conflicts by appointing Indians to Government posts, we should act, otherwise we shall regret it in time to come.
I hope that the Minister will clarify something which could be very unfortunate for our relations with Mr. Burnham's Government. As I understand the constitutional position, my right hon. Friend the shadow Commonwealth Secretary, when in office, gave a quite clear undertaking that after the election, when a Government had been formed, a conference would in due course be set up at which a date for independence would be decided. The date for such independence would emerge from that conference. The Commonwealth Secretary did not say that today. He would not go as far as that. But I want him to say expressly, with regard to one quotation from HANSARD, why these suspicions have arisen there so sharply.
Those in touch with the position know that Mr. Burnham is very upset. It is not a matter of our inventing it; he is very upset. These suspicions exist, and it is up to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to allay them, because it is only the haziness of their language in this situation which has led to these suspicions being created. When the Colonial Secretary visited British Guiana he asked for co-operation and compromise in the setting up of a commission on racial imbalance. The House knows that Mr. Burnham was not happy about this, and was persuaded to agree to it only if it were accepted that it would in no way be regarded as an obstacle on the agreed road towards independence.
On 27th May the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to two Questions, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, said:
It is the intention of the British Government to hold a conference as early as practicable to discuss, among other things, a programme for independence".—
not a date for independence—
Meanwhile we shall be waiting anxiously for the result of the investigation into racial imbalance which the Premier of British Guiana is taking steps to mount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 813.]
What does that really mean? I do not understand, and Mr. Burnham does not understand. When the right hon. Gentleman says that they will be waiting anxiously for the result of the investigation, does he mean that the conference cannot be held until the results are available, or that the conference can be held but that independence cannot be granted, or that even when the results are available Her Majesty's Government must make up their minds whether they can go ahead or not on those results? Those are questions which, if hon. Members opposite think they are not worth asking, are being asked by the Government and the people of British Guiana—and they want a detailed answer.
I must stress the seriousness of the position. If the present Government of British Guiana think that this Commission is to be used to stall on independence it will create wider suspicions in respect of every other aspect of Her Majesty's Government's policy.
One thing which must be remembered is that the Commission has not been formed yet. The members of the Commission have not agreed to serve on it yet. If they agree in due course, how long does the right hon. Gentleman think that they will have to go on? Let us assume that the Commission is set up. There will be a minimum period of several months before it can come to any conclusions. Will the right hon. Gentleman study those conclusions and then decide when British Guiana can have independence? Mr. Burnham is for independence on 1st February next year, and he must be given a more convincing reason why he should not go ahead.
I say this in no party spirit—but we must remember the racial considerations

which operate in British Guiana. In those circumstances, it would be folly to procrastinate. If we did that it would lead to political and racial strife which have lessened since my right hon. Friend's arrangements for the election have led to the creation of a stable Government, who have earned increasing confidence throughout the world. More investments are flowing in than ever before. Her Majesty's Government should not throw this one chance away through any sort of uncertainty, because they do not have much longer before suspicions are aroused to such an extent that they will find it very difficult to allay them in the future.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. David Ennals: I am sure that the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir Frederic Bennett) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he had to say about British Guiana. Like him, I want to concentrate on one subject and I shall therefore follow some of the points which he made about Rhodesia. I should first like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a number of initiatives which he has taken since he assumed his office—the establishment of the Commonwealth Export Council, the proposals for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly, the initiative which he took early in his tenure of office in settling the difficulties in Zambia on the eve of independence, the rôle which he has been playing in solving problems in Brunei and the initiative in the Rann of Kutch, all of which show that we have a Government on the move, constantly taking important initiatives.
As I said, I want to concentrate my attention on the problems of Rhodesia. As we look at the residual problems of the transfer from Empire to independent Commonwealth, it is a tragedy that it is in those countries where there are racial problems that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have faced problems, whether in British Guiana or in Malaysia. But, above all, there is the problem of Rhodesia. The gap there between the white minority and the African majority is getting wider. I agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that this would appear to be the most difficult problem my right hon. Friend has to shoulder.
The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has said on a number of occasions that he does not expect to see an African majority in his lifetime, and he is a relatively young man. There are others in Rhodesia who take a much tougher line than he, who say that white supremacy must be established for all time in Rhodesia. We see the parallel between Rhodesia and South Africa growing closer and closer. I believe that the Prime Minister is a reasonable man and is anxious to find the way towards a genuine settlement. I am extremely glad that the hon. Member for Torquay said that we must all emphasise—however much we may express our concern—that we want to see genuine success, and that a breakdown in the negotiations could lead only to tragedy. I believe that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia wants to achieve success. He has behind him, however, powerful pressures from those who want to cut loose straight away from the British connection. I do not believe that he wants to see it, but there are powerful forces urging him to do so.
There are those who want to see independence for Rhodesia immediately and who want Mr. Smith to have a free hand to change the constitution in the direction which they want to go, regardless of the views of the British Government. They want to modify the Declaration of Human Rights, to institute preventive detention beyond their present powers, to authorise new security measures and to bring in the chiefs in order that they may occupy the "B" roll seats. If I may disgress for a moment, it was interesting, in reading the verbatim report of the Indaba concerning the demand for independence for Rhodesia, to note some of the concluding remarks of Mr. Harper who, in addressing the chiefs, said:
It seems to me that the chiefs and headmen are all of one mind and your decision is to cut the strings without delay. I must ask, however, that if any of you would like to speak against this decision that he be invited to do so now.
Then, in brackets, is printed, "no reply." Mr. Harper went on:
If the chiefs are worthy to be consulted on such an important matter as independence, then they are worthy of playing a part in the making of the laws … there will have to be changes in the Constitution and you will be properly consulted when the time for changes

arrives. As you have made your decision already there will be no need to delay much longer today.
Here we see quite clearly that there are those behind the Prime Minister of Rhodesia who want to see quick changes in the Constitution away from the position of the 1961 Constitution.
The Prime Minister of Rhodesia may come forward to the British Government with a number of proposals. As Sir Robert Treadgold said during his recent visit to London, the Southern Rhodesian Parliament could pass a constitutional Amendment to a Bill incorporating all the Amendments which they wish and then come to the United Kingdom Government asking that they should comply with these changes, thus bypassing the legitimate means of amending the entrenched Clauses. When the British Government refuse, as I believe they would be obliged to do, it may be said that Her Majesty's Government are being unreasonable and obstructive and, therefore, this would be an excuse for a unilateral declaration of independence.
The hon. Member for Torquay said that it was not wise to repeat warnings of the consequences of U.D.I. I do not agree with him. I believe that it is important that it should be clearly understood in Rhodesia—particularly by those who are prepared to take the law into their own hands—how tremendously serious would be the consequences which would flow to them and to their place in the world if they were to act illegally. It was clear from the Rhodesian White Paper published on 26th April, just before the election, that they cast doubt on Britain's determination to carry out the economic measures which the Prime Minister had outlined in November. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister clearly reiterated in the House on 29th April that the declaration of 27th October:
expressed the view that the economic effects of a unilateral declaration would be disastrous to the prosperity and prospects of the people of Rhodesia and that Rhodesia's external trade would be disrupted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 638.]
He went on to indicate many of the serious consequences which would flow. It is important that he should have done this and that it should be repeated.
The first consequences, of course, would be political if the Rhodesian


Government were to take the law into their own hands. Rhodesia would be isolated from its friends in the western world, isolated from the other countries of Africa—certainly from those to the north—and it would be isolated from the Commonwealth. I believe that the hon. Member for Surbiton was quite right to say that if this country were faced with the choice between going along in the direction in which Rhodesia might want to take us and the Commonwealth, our choice would be clear.
It was fortunate, also, that many business interests in Rhodesia have emphasised the very serious consequences. The statement by the Association of Rhodesian Industries, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the tobacco and sugar associations, the National Farmers' Union, all in their own way indicated the very serious consequences which would apply to Rhodesia if U.D.I. were taken.
I believe that the British Government have a clear responsibility. That responsibility is no different, because Rhodesia has a white minority Government, from what it would be if it had a black Government. The tradition has always been that British territories have been granted independence when they have a representative Government. I do not believe that it would be possible for the British Government to repeat the mistakes which were made when South Africa moved towards independence without the will of the people finding proper expression. I believe, therefore, that the British Government must make their position quite clear. It would be a tragedy if we were to desert the post at this stage. We all understand the difficulties of a Government. The British Government today face serious economic problems.
In this situation, with a small majority, all sorts of reasons could inevitably be given, if the crunch were to come, for not acting with firmness. I do not believe that the people of Africa or the people of this country would forgive a British Government if, for whatever reason, they did not act according to their principles. I believe that the Government will do so.
Her Majesty's Government have a clear responsibility not only to help the country to move towards independence and to promote opportunities for self-expression of the people but also to pre-

serve law and order, which is never a popular thing to do. It has not been popular when there have been circumstances in British Guiana and when a breakdown of law and order has occurred. However, if the Rhodesian Government were to act in such a way as to stimulate a revolt in Rhodesia, the responsibility would be on Britain to preserve law and order, however unpopular that task might be.
There are many pressures on the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. Already the screw is being turned tighter. Political parties have been banned and their leaders placed in detention. More than 500 people are now in detention in different parts of Rhodesia. Under the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act more than 20 people are now in prison under sentence of death. That is an extremely tough Measure which is reminiscent of the law in South Africa. It is right and proper that we should appeal to the Rhodesian Government not to carry through the death sentences on those people and not to continue with such repressive legislation.
In recent days we have seen the declaration of emergency in two parts of Rhodesia, as well as restrictions placed on Mr. Leo Baron, the white lawyer, who, I believe, is a man of great ability, integrity, moderation, an influence for good, who is close to the African nationalists and who is a person who could have been used as a bridge and instrument for bringing together both sides in Rhodesia.
I am urging that Her Majesty's Government must be firm. We should indicate that we would not permit independence to be granted in circumstances which did not give to the African people the clear prospect of an eventual African majority. We must recognise that many of the criticisms that have been levelled against Her Majesty's Government in debates in the United Nations have been irresponsible and have shown a lack of understanding of the difficulties and limited power which Britain has. Of course, Her Majesty's Government must be reasonable. We felt a sense of pride and satisfaction when my right hon. Friend went with the Lord Chancellor to Rhodesia, when they met the white and African leaders and created an improved atmosphere which, now that the election is over, gives some hope, as my


right hon. Friend said, that the talks can begin again.
We must say to the African people that they must not expect to achieve majority rule overnight and that as long as there are negotiations, which we all hope will succeed, acts of violence will not help to create the right atmosphere. We must also say to the white people of Southern Rhodesia that we cannot expect the Africans in Rhodesia to be prepared to accept any system which will not give them, within the foreseeable future, an opportunity of participating fully in the Government of their own country.
The time may come when Britain will have to exert authority. We must always realise the possibility, if the negotiations do not succeed, that a constitutional conference will have to be called. What we must now do is to give every opportunity to those who, we hope, will have the good sense to come to the conference table to see that these negotiations produce results. I hope that an opportunity will be provided for Mr. Smith to visit London and have discussions here with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I was glad to note that in answer to a Question recently, my right hon. Friend said that he would be only too happy to visit Rhodesia if that would seem to lead to the possibility of improved negotiations. We all realise that my right hon. Friend has a delicate and difficult task. We wish him Godspeed in that task and in the recognition that probably the biggest responsibility on his shoulders is to try to lead Rhodesia peacefully towards its independence on the basis of fairness and equality of all men regardless of the colour of their skin.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: This debate is proving to be a useful prelude to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. It is far removed from some of the debates which we had in the past when violent controversy raged between the parties, usually pinpointed on one particular territory. The only suggestion of controversy has been the somewhat ironic prospect of a Conservative Opposition pressing a Labour Government to move speedily towards granting independence to a Colonial Territory.
We will listen to the Prime Minister's reply tonight with great care and attention to see whether the specific undertaking which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), when he was colonial Secretary, in regard to British Guiana is being adhered to, both in the letter and, indeed, to the last comma. So often the controversies which we have had in the House relating to Commonwealth territories have not been on matters of principle, but on matters of timing. So often we have conceded to violence when we could formerly have conceded to reason. I hope, therefore, that British Guiana will not be a case in which there will be undue delay.
If, for the moment, one strips the Commonwealth of any emotional ties and considers it from a purely economic point of view it would seem that the value of it to the developing nations is in terms of investment, technical aid and trade. It is interesting to consider how the British Empire, later the Commonwealth, evolved. Traders—whether of the Hudson Bay Company going to Canada, or of the East India Company or any of the other great trading concerns—moved in first and established trading relations and were followed by British political influence moving in to give protection.
In many parts of the Commonwealth we are reverting to our first rôle as a trading nation. It is tremendously exciting to see British firms playing a great part in the development of many of these territories, whether it be the Dunlop Company in East Nigeria, clearing many hundreds of miles of forest, whether it be the Canadian firm of Alcan clearing land in Jamaica for agricultural purposes in connection with the bauxite industry, or whether it be some of the companies in Malawi experimenting with tobacco. One can find expatriate firms doing a first-class job of helping to raise the standard of living of the people living in these territories.
It is on the question of technical aid and trade that before the General Election the party opposite attached great importance to giving these matters high priority. I have no doubt that, emotionally, that is still their desire. The Leader of the Opposition quoted some


remarks made by the present Prime Minister on 6th February last year, when he said:
To fulfil Commonwealth requirements for developmental capital we should agree to expand those sections of our industrial system where existing capacity is inadequate…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1381.]
It is a fact that the economic policies of the present Government, whatever one may say about the necessity of them for domestic reasons, have definitely impeded Commonwealth expansion. The rise in the Bank Rate to 7 per cent. will not have the effect of expanding investment in the Commonwealth as a whole, but the reverse. It is significant to note that Lord Howick stated in the annual report of the C.D.C.:
The rising trend of new commitments has since been checked by the impact of sharply increased interest rates on CDC's Government borrowings, which were raised in February, 1965, to record levels ranging from 6½ per cent. to 6⅞ per cent.
Nor, indeed, will the Corporation Tax have a great beneficial effect, unless we secure some unexpected concessions tomorrow. In fact, it will have an adverse effect on overseas companies.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We should ask for a specific preference in awarding contracts to Britain … instead of tariff preferences we should have preferences in the way of capital contracts and apply to take part in Commonwealth development. … In return, we should undertake to provide guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1380.]
Again, the 15 per cent. surcharge, now reduced to 10 per cent., has not exactly assisted Commonwealth producers. Therefore, it is vital to remember that a sound competitive economy here can do more than anything else to assist the Commonwealth, in terms of investment, in terms of trade, and in terms of technical assistance.
The Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of a Parliamentary Commonwealth Consultative Committee. It is perhaps ironic that we have in Europe the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. We have the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians. There are many other organisations of a similar character. However, we have as yet nothing for the Commonwealth. Therefore, I warmly welcome this move and wish it well.
I believe that there are many useful jobs of work which such a Commonwealth Consultative Assembly could do. I should like to see various committees of Commonwealth Parliamentarians sitting to consider specific problems. For example, a legal and general committee might go into the whole question of the right of asylum, particularly in regard to the Fugitive Offenders' Act, which we in this country, unfortunately, perpetuate and which gave rise to the Enahoro problems a few years ago. An immigration committee might go into certain problems—for example, the possibility of greater information being given by Ministry of Labour representatives in the country of origin; the possibility of health checks being carried out in the country from which the immigrant intends to sail to this country, provided that doctors were recognised by this country, so that immigrants would know that the obstacles which might face them could be effectively overcome in their own country. There could be a very useful committee on trade and technical assistance.
One problem which such a Commonwealth Consultative Committee could look into is the problem of the non-viable areas in the British Commonwealth. This will be one of the great problems. There are far too few facilities for Members of the House to go out and see what the situation is in those countries for which we are responsible. The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office, was affectionately known in the House on occasions as "the hon. Member for Anglesey and St. Helena", because he set himself up as a sort of Menai Bridge connecting St. Helena with the House. There are many other territories where the lack of development and investment would horrify hon. Members.
I have just returned from a part of the world which does not come under the Commonwealth Relations Office. It comes under the Foreign Office. We have certain obligations in regard to development in that country. It is to me a staggering thought that the total amount of investment has been raised from £100,000 to £200,000 a year and the British Government are now quivering on the brink to raise it a further £50,000. Our record of investment in many of the non-viable countries like St. Helena is something which we ought to explore and something


which could well be considered by a Parliamentary Commonwealth Consultative Committee. We would find that in islands for which we are responsible in the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean the standard of living should be greatly improved.
Since it has now become the fashion to send recruits to another place in perhaps greater numbers than has been the case for 40 years, we should have more Commonwealth representatives, more people who could come and speak on Commonwealth affairs with the authority of being indigenous. There might well have to be some convention that they did not vote on domestic matters, in the same way as there is a convention that Lords of Appeal in Ordinary do not vote on very controversial political matters. If it were possible to have representatives from Caribbean and African countries in another place, it would enrich our deliberations and be a strengthening force for the Commonwealth.
Suggestions have been made about the possibility of a Commonwealth court. I shall not go into those in great detail. It was the idea of the late Lord Simon that there should be a sort of Privy Council going on circuit and that the majority should be made up of judges indigenous to the country of appeal. I think that we have gone too far ever to have an appellate court of that kind. We might well have a tribunal for the second purpose which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, namely, for the settlement of disputes between members of the Commonwealth which were prepared to submit their disputes freely, in the same way as with the International Court of Justice at The Hague, for a third member of the Commonwealth to arbitrate. This suggestion might well be considered at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.
I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, with regard to Aden, I always had a rather jaundiced view of federation in Aden, for the very same reason that I had a jaundiced view of federation in Central Africa, namely, that I did not think that either was based upon genuine

political consent. I have always taken the view that federation will never be secured unless Aden Colony becomes independent and then itself opts to federate with the other territories in that part of the world.
What will be the terms of reference of the Commission? Will they be as great as those of the Monckton Commission? Will the Commission have the power to recommend the dismemberment of the Federation, if that is thought to be the wish of the majority of the population? If the Commission were to find that there was a genuine hostility to a continued Federation in that area, then let us recognise what we should have recognised right back in 1952 in Central Africa, namely, that a federation is a farce and is doomed to failure unless it has majority support.
Secondly, with regard to Rhodesia, I agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals). The right hon. Gentleman, like Agag in the Old Testament, was treading delicately. He covered his intentions, which were distinctly honourable, with a cloak of both respectability and almost anonymity. I apreciate that he cannot go into great details as to what policies Her Majesty's Government will raise and how the negotiations will go. Obviously, there will be the question of increased aid for African education. Obviously, there will be the question of getting more Africans to qualify for the B roll vote.
I think that the African Nationalists have made a very great mistake in boycotting the elections in Rhodesia. They should have done everything they could to get the maximum amount of representation and then say to the European minority, "Look how responsible we are. Look at the contribution we have made in the Salisbury Parliament. How can you resist our claim for greater political rights?". I do not think that they have played it very sensibly.
I believe that they should have gone about it in the same way as Julius Nyerere went about it in Tanganyika. He proved the ability of the African population to take greater and greater control of the situation. He not only made his point, but he allayed the fears of the European minority in Tanganyika. Therefore,


when independence was reached in Tanganyika there were not the same stresses and strains which, in my view, will be inevitable in Rhodesia.
One matter on which I sense a little danger ahead is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards immigration. This has a tremendous impact in the British Commonwealth. The Pakistan newspapers had more about Smethwick and incidents in Birmingham than about any other issue relating to Anglo-Pakistan relations. It may well be that we shall he told that tighter controls are needed because of housing and integration problems.
Many reasons may be advanced, but I say to Her Majesty's Government that I hope that one of the reasons for tightening up immigration will not be because there are political pressures, because hon. Members who have a political problem in their constituency are suggesting that this could well be a political liability and that already it is becoming an embarrassment and that there is a risk that the Conservative Party will be exploiting this matter at the next election.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no question of the Conservative Party exploiting this situation at any time, either between elections or at elections. We have made it quite clear—and I think that the Government's position is the same—that in any proposal we make we shall insist that any immigrants in this country shall be treated exactly the same as any British citizens of our own here in these islands. Therefore, there is no question of any political exploitation of this matter, and I hope that the Liberal Party will resist any temptation to make it.

Mr. Thorpe: I am delighted at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will now respond to the challenge which I remember the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) making, and disown utterly the sort of racialism which impartial observers, not party politicians, clearly indicated existed during the Smethwick by-election, which was perhaps one of the most disgraceful and discreditable episodes in British history at any election this century. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement will cover that situation as well. If it does he has disowned racialism

beyond a peradventure. If the sort of campaigning that we read about in Smethwick and some of the speeches which we read in reputable national newspapers are not disowned, there is always an element of doubt which ought to be allayed.
More instruction about the British Commonwealth should be given in our schools. We have a tremendous amount to do in this respect. It is tragic to think that Commonwealth day in Zambia is still a public holiday but the Commonwealth in this country is something about which the average school child may be able to name only three or four countries and then his knowledge comes to an end. We should have a far more dynamic approach to the education of our young people about the Commonwealth and its possibilities.
I impress upon the Minister the need for urgency in setting up the Commonwealth Assembly. It can do a tremendous amount of good. Anyone who has been privileged to see Members of Parliament from 12 to 15 different countries sitting down together at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association here in London will have been tremendously excited by the feeling of belonging to one great family of nations and a feeling that there are all sorts of common problems which we can solve together. This is the sort of good will that exists and this is something which we must develop.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: In debating this subject today we must begin by realising that the Commonwealth is in a fascinating state of development historically. First, we had the long positive, heavy period of empire building. It was something which many of us today would not have agreed with, but, nevertheless, there was purpose and point behind Britain overseas. Then, very much accelerated from 1947 onwards, there was the task of changing the Empire into a Commonwealth, and this House was clearly aware of its task and duties. There were the Lancaster House conferences and visits by the Colonial Secretary to this and that country on the way to independence. Everyone was concerned about and knew what the Empire changing into a Commonwealth was about. The Commonwealth


was an example not of an Empire breaking up, but of an Empire growing up.
Now we have come to the dangerous period when most territories have passed on to full independence within the Commonwealth. At the same time, there is within the Commonwealth today fissiparous tendencies, to grouping particularly of African and Afro-Asian States, and there is the position of the Organisation of American States. I have a feeling that at this stage at the centre of the Commonwealth the sense of purpose is not strong enough and that it will be the job of our leaders, regardless of party, in the immediate five years ahead to establish this purpose. Unless, with the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the ideas of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and assistance to overseas territories, we can introduce a third stage in the Commonwealth, then this experiment of ours in friendship around the world will collapse and disappear.
Against this background of transition I should like to raise three different aspects of our Commonwealth at present. I have chosen a very small territory of which we are completely in control. I want to refer also to Aden and, finally, take a look generally at the Commonwealth and the Far Eastern crisis. As for the small territory, Gibraltar, I have had the privilege of visiting it many times and I have many personal friends there. In an Adjournment debate before Easter we had the opportunity to discuss the situation in Gibraltar, as it is now besieged due to the policy of the Government in Madrid. It is a common characteristic of public affairs that points come up to a crisis—Vietnam is a good example and so is San Domingo—but then simply by the sheer pressure of other events, this item gets neglected. I am passionately concerned that we should not forget this small territory of Gibraltar, of which the living area, no bigger than Hyde Park, has a population of 25,000. We should not rule out of our minds the discomfort which these people are now undergoing.
I brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the housing conditions of two families on the Rock. I know that anxious steps are being taken to arrange various facilities for these families. These are British

families driven out of the Campo area due to the action of Franco Spain. If the Commonwealth is to have a sense of dynamic purpose, Britain must be able to guarantee to a beleaguered territory like Gibraltar that its people will not suffer because of the bullying of a territory nearby. I shall not rest until the sufferings of the dispossessed in the Campo area have been attended to.
Then, what arrangements are to be made for the tourist trade in Gibraltar and for commercial ship repairing? These are small things compared with the great problems of life and death, but the heart of the Commonwealth will be judged as much by the comfort of one Gibraltarian as by any matters in the United Nations or elsewhere.
On the surface the Aden situation is extremely gloomy. We have Mr. Makawee threatening a demand for immediate independence. The alliance of all nationalist forces now in Aden, including Abdullah al Asnaq, now demand that we accept the United Nations resolution for immediate elections and the end of the Aden base. But, at the same time, while one has bad news at the moment, it is possible to see a little further ahead to encouraging developments.
For example, we now have in the neighbouring territory of the Yemen a new Republican Government which seems to be more sympathetic towards friendly relations with Aden and the South Arabian Federation. The very fact that there is a political unity in Aden now means at least that we are negotiating with one group and not with a series of individual political organisations. What is lacking, and has been lacking over a period, in general British policy regarding Aden is that, in many respects, British people never recognise the aspirations of Arab people to be united and to have a sense of identity. For instance, it should be possible for us to say, "Yes, we admit that, in time, Aden will be united in some kind of federation with the rest of Arabia". If we freely admit that we are in favour of good relations and, perhaps, political unity between Aden and the Yemen, so much of the sting is then taken out of the present crisis.
I have always thought that, in our Commonwealth of Nations, we have avoided the harsh and bitter logic of the type of


choices which the French have made. The French have their "Jamais". We once had an unfortunate remark in this House to the effect that a territory would never have self-determination. The late Sir Winston Churchill dealt with that, I think, by saying that "never" was a relative term which could vary according to the situation then prevailing, and we got over that. But the great thing about the Commonwealth is that we have never said, "Never". We have sometimes said, "Somtimes" or "Perhaps". There are many examples which come to mind, for example, India remaining within the Commonwealth as a Republic, the rotating rulers of Malaya, electing a king who recognises the Queen, and so on. This is illogical, and the French would say "Jamais".
As regards Aden, we should, I suggest, think not so much of what is the logic of the situation but what is the common sense of it. We should recognise that they are Arabs. They will always wish to be associated and have a sense of spiritual affinity with the Arab world, and it would be ridiculous to deny it. The great thing about history is that one should not try to resist it; one should get round the front of it. Britain needs, on balance, to be a chameleon with principles. Over the Aden question, we should recognise this Arab affinity. Let us say, "Why can you not, while belonging to the Arab world, be a member of the Commonwealth?" Again, the French would say, "Jamais", but this is something which we could attempt. The facts of life are that Aden makes its living out of the trade and commerce which sails by, and Aden will never be satisfied until it has some form of political unity wider than the present association with the South Arabian Federation.
For my third point I turn to the much wider question of Britain and the Commonwealth and our relations with the Afro-Asian world. It seems to me that our leaders—I know that we are trying to keep this debate on reasonably non-party lines—have historically never really understood the feel, as it were, of Asia. Looking for a moment at leading ex-Ministers and spokesmen on the Opposition side, one sees that they have an admirable European background.
If I may, perhaps, make an exception for my own Front Bench, I know that

some of them at least are aware of territories in Africa and Asia. But, basically, I sometimes think that the Asian Commonwealth is not sufficiently in our thoughts. For instance, since the present Government came into office, there have been several visits, visits to Washington, visits by our Prime Minister to Paris, to Rome and to Bonn. I should have preferred to see the Commonwealth figuring in our priorities, too, with visits alternating between the European and Western nations and the Afro-Asian bloc.
It is very difficult for us in this country, when we use the word "Communism", to realise that it has an entirely different meaning in, for example, North Vietnam from the meaning it has in, say, Eastern Germany. It is very dangerous to assume that the kind of menace of Communism of which we speak when thinking of Eastern Europe is automatically an evil thing among the people of the Mekong Delta in South Vietnam. Communism in the present Communist world varies vastly between Albania and Hungary and China.
So when we think in our Commonwealth of the dangers in the Far East, in Vietnam, for instance, we must have a keener perception of the Afro-Asian world, and we must have it particularly in this country at the heart of the Commonwealth. We have had approaches to the Vietnam crisis by our own country individually, by Russia, by France and by America. I hope that, at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference, great thought and care will be devoted, in full session, to the Vietnam crisis. If the Commonwealth means anything at all in international relations, it must do more through the coming conference than merely make a polite remark about the need for a peaceful solution. It would give an example of virility at the moment if the Commonwealth could tackle the most urgent problem now facing the world.
I have tried to deal with three different aspects of the Commonwealth today. One thing is quite certain in terms of its survival. It will not survive by mere words, formulae or communiquôs. It can survive only by the increasing interchange of Commonwealth interests. To conclude on an optimistic note, this is where


I believe that, although there are dangers and we may have lost our way, if we can keep our Commonwealth scientific conference going and our Commonwealth education conference going—we have a new Commonwealth radio and television association now—and if we can keep our Commonwealth defence associations going, there will be real hope for the future.
I could be cynical, of course, and say that in those circumstances there would be so many free trips going that nobody would dare to cancel out the Commonwealth, but, on the other hand, we should have so many shared friendly interests that the Commonwealth, in spite of its present dangerous sense of torpor, could go on to further strength.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: The House will have very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson). I was particularly struck by a phrase he used at the beginning of his speech, when he said that he thought that, perhaps, the throb of the Commonwealth might not be strong enough in the future. There is a lot of wishful and inaccurate thought about the Commonwealth, and I accept all that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier about how important it is to decide what the Commonwealth is not.
It will never be, or is unlikely ever to be, an economic unit like the United States of America or the Common Market in Europe. We all know the reason why. Its constituent members in one way or another want to protect themselves, and the rich countries which have a higher standard of living that we have in the United Kingdom continue to be determined to protect and foster their young and expanding industries. Britain herself, as my right hon. Friend said, because of the needs of war and now because of our balance of payments difficulties, rightly buys agricultural produce more dearly from home than she need do if she bought from overseas. The vast bulk of the Commonwealth, which is very poor by our standards, has a chronic balance of payments problem, worse than our own, and it wants not only aid but protection for as many of its new and

infant industries as can possibly be started.
The economic standards of the many Commonwealth countries are so completely different that a full partnership on that economic plane would make us poorer and the other countries not very much richer. That is why many people believe that our future ultimately lies with Europe. If we safeguard the future of our own industries by getting them fair competition inside Europe, we ourselves will become richer and therefore able to buy more from the Commonwealth and to give the Commonwealth more aid and, above all, to invest more in the Commonwealth.
Before that is likely to be achieved, I suspect that we might have to take some very disagreeable decisions about our own population. This is something which ought not to be shirked. On the whole, multi-racial societies have succeeded in very few places in the world. We have heard about the difficulties in Mauritius, Fiji, East Africa and, of course, in the United States. One of the difficulties is not the colour but that culture is different. The Indians and the Pakistanis are a proud race. They have a civilisation much older than our own and they keep together, rather as the British kept together when we were in India. It is difficult at times to absorb these blocs which get together in certain towns, and one of the great problems we might have to face is the integration of those who are already with us.
I am sure that we are prepared to spend more on our schools and hospitals and other amenities and to accept people to do the jobs which on the whole the English shun, but I am not sure that this is right and that it would not be better for us to rely more on machines in future and to integrate all those from the Commonwealth whom we have here. It may well be that because we have to import food and so many other materials for the people who live in this country the future will see more emigration out of England. Who, knowing the charms of New Zealand and the good climate of Australia, would not prefer them to our northern winters? It is quite possible that in future we will have more emigration than immigration. Therefore, there is little future for Commonwealth free trade.
But nor is the Commonwealth a military alliance. The bulk of the population and, I believe, the bulk of the countries of the Commonwealth are unaligned. They do not want to be caught up with any particular ideology. They want help for development and many will take it from whatever quarter it is offered.
Yet we should be very proud of how we have led so many countries to independence within the Commonwealth. There are a few more to come—Mauritius, British Guiana—and no doubt the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will have seen the letter from Mr. Luckoo of 24th May in The Times. There are also Southern Arabia, the Little Seven and, one hopes, Rhodesia by agreement. Perhaps the Prime Minister will say how he sees the future of some of the islands and other small territories which could never be viable, territories to which the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred.
Are they to accept, say, the Western Samoa Constitution, or are their wants to be heard in the voices of temporary peers in another place—and, after all, the bishops are temporary and it is possible that these territories could have voices speaking for them in another place, if with much shorter Parliamentary lives than the bishops have. That would not affect the Government of this country and it would still give these territories a sounding board.
But when all that is negative has been said, members of the Commonwealth in this distracted world have a special way of getting on with each other, and we might well be copied by many other countries. But is it enough? This is the question which the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough asked. Personally, I fear that if nothing more is done there is a danger of the Commonwealth going the way of the Holy Roman Empire.
The Prime Ministers are about to meet. Rhodesia, India and Pakistan and the confrontation in Malaysia are intractable problems. The Prime Ministers will look out on a world where expansionist Chinese Communism threatens all South-East Asia. They will see, I regret, an

enfeebled United Nations. What can they, helped by their new Secretariat, do to enable world order to triumph over increasing world chaos?
There are six things which can be done. In 1961, the Prime Ministers called for disarmament and inspection and a permanent ban on nuclear weapon tests. Despite a partial nuclear test ban, unfortunately the world today is a gloomier place than it was in 1961. I still think that action could be taken on the establishment of a prototype directly recruited Commonwealth peace force on the lines suggested by the Prime Minister of Canada. After all, we are like-minded nations.
Not all would agree to such a course. India might object, feeling that such a force might be sent to the Rann of Kutch or elsewhere, but if such a force had been in existence it would have been very helpful in Cyprus or East Africa in the past. It could never be used, except at the request of a Commonwealth Government, inside its own territory and at least it would be a minor agent in reducing the danger of a political explosion—and there are other places where other explosions are threatening. At least it would show the way to a greater international peace force in the years to come.
Secondly, the conference might stress the value of the English tongue. Even if our language did not exist, it would have had to have been invented as a means whereby hundreds of millions of people could talk to each other. Even in India where I was the other day—as Madras showed a few months ago—it is in great demand. What more can be done to see that it is taught?
The Commonwealth Educational Conference last year recommended the use of the Initial Teaching Alphabet as a medium of teaching English as a second language and £30,000 has been granted to Ibadan University for an experiment with I.T.A. As by September of this year 50,000 British children in British schools will be working with the I.T.A., cannot more be done in the Commonwealth? Since there is such a demand for teachers and trainers of every kind in the Commonwealth, cannot the Prime Minister may that more will be done to safeguard the places on the ladder of promotion


of those who volunteer for tours overseas?
Thirdly, despite the Finance Bill and its emphasis against British investment overseas—and one regrets that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Overseas Development is not here—could not some Commonwealth scheme of insurance against political risks for new investments in developing countries be devised? I know that this has been considered and that there was a Question about it earlier today. If this could be put through to reality and we could have a scheme of insurance comparable with those in the United States, Japan and Germany, much could be done, because private enterprise brings with it technicians who can teach whereas public aid is paid out in large dollops and one then goes elsewhere to get the technicians to teach.
Too many countries have in the past hurt investors in Asia and Africa and that is one of the reasons why private investment has been falling. If new investment could be insured against political risks I believe we should see private investment going up again, to the benefit of everyone, and I am quite certain that we should be prepared to pay the necessary premium.
Fourthly, should there not be more teachers at all levels and more accommodation here for students and apprentices from the Commonwealth? I have known difficulty in my own city of Liverpool where we tried to take over the old Liverpool Chest Hospital for use as an overseas hostel only to find that our local education authority thought it would be better employed for its own purposes. This may be understandable in the short-term, but some of our visitors return to positions of importance in their own countries and many go home far from happy with their reception here.
I had a letter the other day from a Commonwealth Minister who had had dinner with us. I read the letter with shame, because he said at the end of it that mine was the first private house into which he had ever been. This can be found often in this country and we ought to remember how well the partnership in the old Indian Civil Service worked. Many of the Indians and Pakistanis who have spent some time in

this country now hold positions of immense importance on the subcontinent. We must germinate the same spirit, as in the old days, with these overseas visitors.
Fifthly, it seems to me that what the Commonwealth want more than anything else is cheap air travel. The Commonwealth is tremendously dispersed and it is very expensive to travel about it. It is also very expensive for many of the Commonwealth taxpayers who have to subsidise uneconomic airlines. Is it not possible in certain cases to follow the example set by the Scandinavians and for some of the countries to get together in the establishment of a similar airline? I know there are difficulties about I.A.T.A. but it would help greatly in drawing the Commonwealth together.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the fact that B.O.A.C. Quantas, and Air India have such an arrangement, and that B.O.A.C. has it with small airlines elsewhere?

Mr. Tilney: I am aware of that and I am aware of the work of other airlines, such as Ghana Airlines. I believe that much money can be saved and the Commonwealth spirit engendered by partnership of that kind.
Lastly, it is well to remember that man does not live by bread alone. He likes and enjoys medals and awards. Is it not time that there was a Commonwealth Order of Achievement, rarely granted and stemming from the Head of the Commonwealth, on the advice of Presidents and Governors-General? Is there any reason why this country should not be put on the same basis as Canada, Australia and others and have our own Governor-General, thereby freeing Her Majesty from some of her purely United Kingdom work? One must bear in mind that at some time in the future—a long way away, one hopes—there might be a minor on the throne of Britain and the high office of Head of the Commonwealth might have to be moved, for a time, elsewhere.
Some may think these ideas very bizarre—like those of a Commonwealth court of appeal or a Commonwealth assembly, even expanding the annual meeting of the C.P.A. But organisations,


like businesses, either go forward with the times or sink into obscurity. It is my belief that, if only some of the ideas suggested in the House today are adopted, the Commonwealth and its people will enjoy an even more glorious page in history than ever in the past.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Sometimes the duty of back benchers, in a short time, is to pick up some of the pieces which have dropped through the riddle of high policy wielded by Front Bench spokesmen.
The first piece which I should like to pick up is that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). He referred to conditions on British ships operating from Hong Kong and specifically named the Blue Funnel Line of Liverpool. This was the company with which I served and, although it is a long time ago, it is right that I should put forward the opinion that in the transport of passengers from this country to the Far East the Blue Funnel Line and the Glen Line have conditions of service for their servants, whether they be British officers or Asian crews, second to none in this country and are leaders in transport throughout the world. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear at some other time that he was not criticising that Line.
I came to the debate as one who believed that the patron saint of politicians should be St. Thomas the Doubter. Over the years I have grown to have some doubts about the value of the Commonwealth. This was not always so. Twenty years ago I left my village believing absolutely implicity in the righteousness of the British Empire and Commonwealth and proud that I left my own home with the names and addresses of up to 50 jeople who had gone from my village and county to settle in various parts of the Commonwealth. I found, as a merchant seaman who served in the war for over five years, that there was not a port in the world where one could not find British people to whom England was still the old country and home.
My first doubts about the virtues of the Empire arose in Calcutta, when I found that boys aged 7 were used to clean out the ship's boiler. The second

doubt arose when I went to Australia and found, after buying a map in that country, that instead of Britain being the centre of the world, as we were taught at school, according to Australians, Britain was the little island tucked on the top left-hand side of the map and that Australia was the centre of the Commonwealth. I suppose that it depends how one looks at things.
It was right for both Front Bench spokesmen to ask what were the virtues and uses of the Commonwealth in 1965 and that as the Empire is now an association of free and independent States we should ask what is its virtue and purpose. I welcome the efforts made to increase Commonwealth trade—enlightened self-interest, one might call it—and to form a permanent Commonwealth Secretariat and the suggestion that we should have, in the not-too-distant future, a Commonwealth Parliament. I hope that we might even achieve a Commonwealth court, to which disputes between neighbours, whether they be geographical neighbours or otherwise, could be referred by process of arbitration and that the decisions of such a court would ultimately be accepted. I hope that in the long-term the English-speaking dominions will form the basis of a Commonwealth association which, after we have passed from these benches, may lead to a world Government.
Today, I had passed to me from friends in Liverpool a request that I should raise a very lighthearted matter. It followed on a Question which I was hoping to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about relations between this country and Spain. I have been asked to refer to the fact that Spain has protested that a Miss Gibraltar has been entered for this year's Miss World Contest in London and to urge the Prime Minister to give such support to this young lady as she needs. That is an invitation which may be more acceptable to him than some of the duties which he has to perform.
I would stress to my right hon. and hon. Friends the need for more information about the Commonwealth. I went to Australia believing that most of the natives there—not the kangaroos—spent their life surf riding at Bondi Beach, but then found that it was not so. Last


year, my great niece came from Sydney thinking of this country as the land of Beefeaters, fog and bowler hats. She, too, found that it was not so. More accurate information should be exchanged; and if the B.B.C. and I.T.V. could be brought in more than they are at present, it would be a very useful way of disseminating information.
Finally, I ask my right hon. Friends to give us more specific information about those islands in the South and South-West Pacific to which—and here I must be careful how I phrase things—my neighbour and friend from Liverpool also referred. I hope that it does not get him into any political trouble. There are islands in the Pacific that flare into the headlines and have one great moment of glory, after which they seem to be neglected. More information about what the Government propose to do to help these areas would be appreciated.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: As was to be expected, a number of hon. Members have referred to the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I think that we are all glad that this debate should have taken place on the eve of that important meeting. I am very glad that it has been decided to hold another Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference a year after the last meeting—in fact, slightly under the year. There have been occasions when 18 months or two years have elapsed between meetings. This is too long, and I certainly hope that these will now become regular annual events. I very much agree with the Commonwealth Secretary when he stressed the value of regular informal exchanges between Commonwealth Prime Ministers; it should not need a crisis or a very special problem to bring the leaders of the Commonwealth together.
A number of important new initiatives were launched at last year's Commonwealth Prime Minister's meeting. While I was in very general agreement with what the Commonwealth Secretary said, I was a little disappointed by the amount of information he gave us about the progress of these various new projects. He listed them, but did not tell us very much

about each as he came to it. I hope that the Prime Minister may be able to give us a little more information.
I have no doubt that by far the most important of the new initiatives which were launched last year was the decision to set up a Commonwealth Secretariat and I hope that the Prime Minister may be able to tell us something about its terms of reference. Nobody can say how the Commonwealth Secretariat will evolve, but my own personal opinion is that, at any rate in the first instance, its main function should be to disseminate information provided by Governments, and to facilitate the exchange of views between Commonwealth Governments on current international issues.
The Commonwealth Secretary was right when he said that, on the whole, Commonwealth Governments have closer contact with Britain than they have with one another, and that we must help to change that if we can. It is right and natural that Britain, being the founder and centre of the Commonwealth, should continue to be expected to play a leading part. But if the Commonwealth is to perform its unique rôle in the world, I am quite sure that all its members must continuously maintain touch with each other and not just with Britain.
They must all the time be explaining to one another their aims and their actions; they must continuously make an effort to understand each other's problems and feelings; and what is probably the most difficult thing of all, particularly for a young country, other Commonwealth Governments, like Britain's, must sometimes be prepared to modify their policies in the interests of Commonwealth unity. That is the essence of our Commonwealth relationship. In this task I believe that the new Commonwealth Secretariat can play a most constructive part.
The Government have said—the Commonwealth Secretary referred to it today—that they intend to propose to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers the setting up of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly. In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of this was to increase contacts between Commonwealth parliamentarians. Like the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), I warmly


welcome any step which can be taken which will increase contacts between Members of Parliament in the different Commonwealth countries. We must, however, be careful how we go about it. We must make sure that this new Assembly, which, I hope, will be created, exercises a unifying and not a divisive influence.
In a recent speech, the Prime Minister compared the idea of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly with the European Assembly at Strasbourg and others, including the hon. Member for Devon, North, have mentioned this. We would make a great mistake if we tried to create a Commonwealth counterpart to the European Assembly at Strasbourg, for the simple reason that the European relationship is so totally different from the Commonwealth relationship.
The nations which are represented at Strasbourg are pledged to a greater or lesser degree to integration and, naturally, their debates are focused on the means of achieving that integration. It is, therefore, appropriate that they should have formal parliamentary institutions and that they should vote resolutions. The Commonwealth, however unlike Europe, is not a homogeneous group of neighbours with a common economic and political objective. It is a collection of nations of different races spread all over the globe, nations with totally different historical backgrounds, totally different political outlooks and totally different economic problems.
The unique characteristic of our modern Commonwealth is that it brings together not like-minded peoples, but unlike-minded peoples. That is its unique feature. It helps these people to understand and respect one another. In this way, it exercises a direct and indirect influence for peace and tolerance throughout the world.
To ask a body of that kind, representing such diverse nations, to vote resolutions—and I assume that those who think of producing a Commonwealth version of the Strasbourg Assembly must be thinking in those terms—would have the effect of crystallising their differences and consolidating them into opposing camps. I hope, therefore, that any arrangement which is made for setting up a Commonwealth Parliamentary Assem-

bly will be organised on the most informal lines; and I urge that it be channelled through the organisation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The influence and importance of that Association have been growing year by year and it would, I suggest, be the greatest pity to do anything to duplicate its work or to undermine its position in any way.
The last Government increased the annual grant to the C.P.A. from £13,000 to £55,000 a year and I believe that the whole House would agree that that was money well spent. This has made it possible to hold two annual meetings of Commonwealth Members of Parliament in London and greatly to increase the flow of British Members of Parliament to Commonwealth countries overseas. I feel sure that the present Government will continue to give their full support and encouragement to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The Commonwealth Prime Ministers regularly review the world situation and discuss any problems which threaten the peace. I hope very much that on this occasion they will put the spotlight upon the armed attacks on Malaysia by Indonesia. In such a situation, any Commonwealth country should be able to count upon the unqualified moral support of its fellow members.
I am sorry to have to say it, but the fact is that Malaysia has not received the full backing which she is undoubtedly entitled to receive from her fellow members of the Commonwealth, whether in the United Nations or in international conferences of various kinds. Some Commonwealth countries have shown hesitation about taking sides between two Asian countries and have been reluctant to express approval of the despatch of British troops to help Malaysia to resist invasion.
The events which have taken place since the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting leave no room for doubt about the conciliatory attitude, to which the Commonwealth Secretary referred, of Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malaysian Government. Nor do they leave any room for doubt about the expansionist ambitions and bellicose actions of President Soekarno. The Commonwealth Secretary reminded us that President Soekarno had openly declared that his aim was to crush Malaysia.
There is also, I think, no longer any doubt that unless Britain had quickly come to Malaysia's aid a Commonwealth country would have been overrun and conquered. Let us hope, therefore, that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at this coming meeting will show themselves as keen to condemn aggression as they have shown themselves keen, and quite rightly, to condemn racial discrimination and other injustices.
The Commonwealth Secretary made an important statement, and, I think, a new one, on the question of Commonwealth immigration. He said that we must take in only as many immigrants as we can properly absorb. I hope very much that the Prime Minister will arrange for a frank discussion of this whole question of Commonwealth immigration at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. This is more especially necessary if, as it seems, the Government are contemplating a change in their immigration policy, and perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us whether that is the case.
I say that there should be a frank discussion because there has been altogether much too much woolly talk about the question of immigration. It has been said that this is not a racial problem, that it is rather a problem of assimilation. That is really a different way of saying the same thing. We all know that if all the immigrants were Australians it would be quite easy to absorb them, but when they are people of different races, sometimes of different religions, and speak different languages, the problem of integration is very much more difficult.
We are all agreed that once he is here an immigrant must be treated as one of us, without any racial discrimination of any kind whatsoever. But the prevention of discrimination by itself, as I think everyone will agree, is not enough. If the newcomers—and this is the point which the Commonwealth Secretary has rightly emphasised—are admitted faster than they can be absorbed, then friction and tension is bound to develop, and this is bound to increase as the numbers grow. This will inevitably lead to further friction and tension, and, I am afraid, sooner or later, to shameful incidents which would have a most disastrous effect on

our relations with other Commonwealth countries.
It is of the utmost importance to the whole Commonwealth that we should prevent the development of a racial problem in Britain. It is important for us. It is important for our Commonwealth partners. Above all else, it is important for the immigrants themselves. That is why I feel that there would be every advantage in having a frank discussion of the whole question at a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. I think it will help to clear the air, and I believe the Prime Minister will find that there is more understanding among his Commonwealth colleagues for our problem than perhaps he imagines.
Several hon. Members have spoken about independence for British Guiana, and references have been made to my pledge. I should like to read it to the House. At the independence conference that we held in 1963 I gave the following undertaking:
After the elections are over, the British Government will convene a conference to settle any remaining constitutional issues, and to fix a date for independence.
That is absolutely plain, absolutely clear. I asked the Colonial Secretary a Question about it the other day, and he confirmed that the pledge stood.
Unfortunately, in his speech today the Commonwealth Secretary threw some doubts on the intention of the Government to honour that pledge in full. I do not blame him; it is always difficult when Ministers have to talk about Departments other than their own. He said that he was not certain that the conference, which would be held at an unspecified date, would fix the date for independence. I do not think that he meant in any way to amend what his right hon. Friend had said.
I do not wish to pursue the point, but the Prime Minister should make the position absolutely clear and say that the present Government stand by the last Government's pledge, without qualification. I hope that the Prime Minister will also tell us either when the conference will take place or the reasons for the delay in making an announcement.
Conditions in British Guinea are still far from perfect, but everyone who is in touch with the position will agree that the situation is considerably improved. People who left the country are now returning, outside investment in increasing, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said, a new air of confidence is developing.
It is important to realise that all the races are now asking for immediate independence. It is not a question of one race asking for it and another being opposed to it. Even Dr. Jagan's People's Youth Organisation has now come out with the slogan, "Independence Now". I therefore submit that there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by further delay in convening this conference. If we put it off much longer there will be deep resentment, and it will lay the Government open to the charge of a breach of faith.
The Commonwealth Secretary spoke of Aden and South Arabia. Here again, the Government have given the impression of fumbling and hesitation. As I said recently in the House, the Colonial Secretary appears to be frantically trying to avoid the responsibility for taking a decision. He has even tried to call in the United Nations to help him, but U Thant, quite correctly, has put the ball back into the right hon. Gentleman's court.
Nobody likes the right hon. Gentleman's international Commission. I am glad that the Commonwealth Secretary made it clear that that is what it is—an international commission. The Aden Government are opposed to it. All the Aden political parties are opposed to it. The Eastern Protectorates do not like it. The Colonial Secretary said that the Federal Government welcomed it. That is a distortion of the facts. It is true that they have indicated that if the commission comes into being and comes to Aden they will not boycott it, but apart from that they have given it the coolest of receptions.
The situation in Aden, in the Federation and in South Arabia generally is very complicated, but certain basic facts are absolutely clear. The first is that Aden and the rest of the Federation belong together. They are linked together not

only by geography, but by economic and political necessity. However much they may quarrel with one another, each needs the other. There can be no question of separating Aden from the Federation.
The second fact is that the British military base at Aden must be retained. If British protection were withdrawn, we all know that the 50,000 Egyptian troops in the Yemen would stream over the border. I have no doubt that they would not be any more successful in subjugating the tribes of Southern Arabia than they have been in the Yemen, but they would have little difficulty in capturing the port and town of Aden if British protection were withdrawn.
The base is, of course, equally important to material prosperity. It brings in, I think, at least £12 million a year. The Economist estimated it at £18 million. Without that, there is little doubt that the Aden economy as it now is would virtually collapse. At the conference on South Arabia last summer, the representatives of both Aden and the Federation specifically asked that the British base should remain after independence.
They said:
The delegates from the Federation and from Aden request that, as soon as practicable, the British Government should convene a conference for the purpose of fixing a date for independence not later than 1968 and of concluding a defence agreement under which Britain would retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her world-wide responsibilities. The Secretary of State"—
that is, myself—
announced agreement of the British Government to this request.
There is, therefore, no need for the right hon. Gentleman to have any inhibitions about saying that the British troops will stay.
Another basic fact is that, while Aden has the status of a Colony whose future can be decided by this Parliament here in Westminster, the relations between the other States of the Federation and Britain are governed by treaties concluded between them and Her Majesty's Government. Some of these treaties are recent and were approved by this House. It follows, therefore, that the British Government cannot add new States to the Federation or alter the Federal Constitution without the agreement of the Federal


Government, which is free to give or to withhold its consent. In an effort to please everybody, I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has lost the co-operation of all.
I urge him to drop this international Commission, which nobody wants. He must realise that its report will have to be published. It will contain nothing which he does not already know and it will have the effect only of restricting his freedom of action when he comes to take a decision. Let him take this whole matter back into his own hands, where the responsibility belongs. Let him make it clear that the protection of the British base will continue. Let him by all means study the views of all the elements and interests involved, but let him realise that his first task must be to regain the confidence of the Federal Government, for without their co-operation there can be no settlement.
One does not need to be a prophet to foretell that the subject of Rhodesia will be raised at the coming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that it is very important, once again, as was done on the last occasion, to make it clear just where the responsibility rests.
The communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers on the last occasion said:
The Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries recognise that the authority and responsibility for leading her remaining colonies to independence must continue to rest with the British Government.
The communiqué also said:
The Prime Minister of Britain"—
I hope that we can use the word "Britain" rather more often than "United Kingdom", which is such an awful expression—
emphasised that the Government of Southern Rhodesia was constitutionally responsible for the internal affairs of that territory and that the question of the granting of independence was a matter for decision by the British Parliament.
That was and still is the position. I hope that once the other Prime Ministers know that negotiations are in train they will not press the British Prime Minister to enter into any commitments with them which would fetter his freedom of action in the negotiations.
I am very glad indeed that the negotiations have now really started, as the Commonwealth Secretary said today. I also very much welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's words when he talked about "realistic negotiations". I welcomed his reference to the need for patience and compromise on all sides. As he said, the problem is to find a realistic and generally acceptable solution. If that can be done I am sure that it will satisfy reasonable opinion here and throughout the Commonwealth.
Nobody is more aware than I am of the difficulty of these negotiations. Deep anxieties, sincere convictions and strong emotions are involved. However, I believe that there is one powerful factor which may tip the scale in favour of agreement. That is the realisation of the consequences of failure. More and more people on all sides are coming to realise what a break between Rhodesia and Britain would mean. The Commonwealth Secretary referred to the appalling consequences and there is no doubt that for the Rhodesians it would spell disaster. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they are not the only people who would be affected. It would confront Britain with one of the most painful of dilemmas. The whole of Africa—indeed, the whole of the Commonwealth—would be thrown into confusion.
It would not be helpful for me to express any thoughts of my own about the terms of a possible settlement and still less about what action would be appropriate in the event of a rift. All I will say tonight is that we wish the Government every success in these critical negotiations, on the outcome of which so much depends.

9.23 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) not only for his concluding words, but for a great deal of the rest of his speech, not least the very statesmanlike references he made, as did the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, to the highly delicate question of Rhodesia, to which I will come shortly.
Although I have not heard all the speeches, I have heard enough to know that this has been a very useful and


constructive debate. It was widely agreed on both sides of the House that it would be of the highest value for us to debate the problems facing the Commonwealth and the issues which it will be right for my Commonwealth colleagues and myself to discuss at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference before that conference begins. This is a new departure. We did not have a debate last year on the eve of the Conference, though the House will recall the searching discussion which we had, and the right hon. Member for Streatham quoted from it, in a debate which he opened on 6th February last year, four or five months before the Conference.
While obviously I am not free to comment in detail on many of the things which have been said, I can certainly assure the House that the analysis of Commonwealth problems and the constructive suggestions which have been made from both sides of the House will be closely examined by my right hon. Friends and myself before the Conference begins.
I should like to have felt freer to say a good deal more about what I hope is going to happen at the Conference, but I know that the House will understand the difficulties about this. For something like six months now the Government have been preparing for this Conference, examining—and sometimes dismissing—possible ideas and initiatives which might be put forward. During this period we have been in touch, as is the practice, with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. In addition, I have myself, whether in Britain or overseas, had the opportunity of meeting no fewer than eight of the 20 heads of Government of the Commonwealth countries who will be at this month's Conference.
The House will understand if, with the preparations which have been going on, I am somewhat inhibited in replying to some of the points raised, not only by the obviously confidential nature of the pre-Conference communications, of which right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite have so much experience, but also by the fact that on a number of points where we hope to take initiatives and make suggestions to our colleagues there are difficulties in my saying what

these are in a public sense now before I know the views of my Commonwealth colleagues on them.
Right hon. Members on both sides of the House between us have had long experience of these Conferences. I first had the opportunity of sitting alongside Lord Attlee at one of the first of these Conferences 17 years ago in 1948. The Leader of the Opposition, in more than one capacity, has attended a number of these Conferences. So has the right hon. Member for Streatham. All of us agree that the best results will be achieved if we leave as many of these issues as possible for informal and confidential discussion between Commonwealth colleagues, with the most earnest hope that I could give as full a report as possible to the House when the Conference is over.
A number of questions have been asked of a factual character. Perhaps I might refer briefly to the point about the Commonwealth Secretariat raised by the right hon. Member for Streatham. Since last year's communiqué there has been as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a conference of very senior civil servants, mainly at Cabinet Secretary and similar level—External Affairs Secretary level—in London to work out the general guide lines, rules and organisation of the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is well known that there have been some discussions between Commonwealth Prime Ministers about possible names. All this—both the general organisation of the Secretariat and the choice of a secretary-general—falls for discussion at the Conference and therefore I cannot say very much more about these matters at this stage. I would hope that, if the details are not published as fully as the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House would like—I hope that they will be—I will be able to make a statement about how this will work.
I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly. This should be designed and organised in such a way as to be a unifying and not a divisive conference. I agree with some of the warnings he uttered. I confirm that we propose to work in the closest co-operation with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the organisation of this important Conference.
As to a Commonwealth court, a point mentioned by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, here again it is a question of seeing how far our Commonwealth colleagues are in support of the idea. We certainly support in principle the idea of a Commonwealth court of this kind, providing a court of appeal of the very highest calibre, especially for litigants from those countries whose resources might make it difficult for them to maintain a high level court of appeal themselves. The court would be of great assistance in helping to ensure, not exactly a uniform, but at any rate a harmonious development of law throughoutr the Commonwealth. We must see whether there is a general demand for it. If there is, we shall certainly do all our power to help to promote the setting up of this court.
I turn to one or two of the specific problems referred to by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Member for Streatham before I come to some of the more general issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. First, Malaysia. I agree with everything which was said by the right hon. Gentleman and with the importance of this subject in relation to the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference.
I trust now that no one in the House or anywhere in the Commonwealth will be in any doubt about the determination of this country to make the fullest contribution within our power to the requirements of Commonwealth defence generally and to meet any calls upon us for assistance to our Commonwealth partners.
As right hon. Gentlemen have said, both of our Governments have shown an unhesitating and massive response to the needs of Malaysia in the confrontation with Indonesia. About 10,000 men are now in Borneo and 40,000 in Western Malaysia. Certain of these are actively engaged in support of Malaysia's own security forces and one should not, in paying tribute to Commonwealth troops there, fail to pay tribute to what Malaysia's own forces are doing in playing a leading rôle against Indonesia's incursions and in repelling Indonesian attacks. Of course, not all the 40,000 are involved in this particular confrontation,

because Singapore is in the area and therefore they have more than one purpose.
I want to make quite clear, as I hope I have done repeatedly, at Question Time, that the Government agree whole-heartedly with the views expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members that the negotiation of a settlement of the problem between Indonesia and Malaysia would get the fullest backing of all of us. But, having said that, there does not seem to me, as I have said before, to be much to negotiate about, because the whole problem has arisen from the refusal of Indonesia to recognise the fact of Malaysia. It is not that the Indonesians do not like Malaysia, but that they do not recognise that it exists, despite the fact that it is a full member of the Commonwealth and a partner and ally of ours and a full member of the United Nations. Therefore, if one describes the situation on the Malayan-Indonesian border as a war it is an unnecessary war, and if it is a confrontation it is an unnecessary confrontation.
Sometimes the suggestion is made that Her Majesty's Government should mediate and use our good offices in securing a solution, but I have to make clear what the difficulty is. Any initiative on our part would be regarded by the Indonesians as an admission that Malaysia, which they regard as under our tutelage, is something less than fully independent. We are partners of Malaysia and we seek no separate deal with those guilty of aggression on Malaysia, but any easing of this unnecessary tension, whether by direct negotiation or through the help of a third Power, whether in Asia or elsewhere, would be welcome to all of us.
Let me make clear again, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, that we seek nothing for ourselves in Malaysia except the carrying out of our obligations as partners and allies. As I said in welcoming the S.E.A.T.O. conference in London, if Malaysia and the Asian members of S.E.A.T.O. were to say to Britain, "Thank you, but all outside threats to our independence have ceased and we no longer need your help", nobody would be more pleased than the British Government and, I am sure, all hon. and right hon. Members in this


House. While referring to Malaysia I must mention, since this is a Commonwealth debate, what the right hon. Member for Streatham has already mentioned, and that is the help which Australia and New Zealand are giving both in Western Malaysia and Borneo and in the combined naval operations devoted to the task of deterring and repelling Indonesian aggression.
I should like to refer briefly to Southern Rhodesia. All that can be said was said rightly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations this afternoon. There is no difference between the two sides of the House. We, then in Opposition, were kept fully informed of the meetings and conferences which the right hon. Gentleman had with the Prime Minister of what was then Southern Rhodesia last September. I also saw him and there was no difference between the parties at that time. There has been no difference at any time since. I saw the full minutes of those meetings. I completely agreed with what was said on behalf of Britain on that occasion, and I think that it can be said that everything that we have done since has been in continuance of the policy then stated. We have had to make some pretty tough statements and I think that those have been understood and supported throughout the House and I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that they have had their effect. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the problem is tremendously difficult. Nobody in any part of the House will underestimate the size of the gap which has to be bridged, and the right hon. Gentleman did not try to underestimate it.
It is our duty to try to secure by negotiation an arrangement which we regard as democratic—because without that there can be no going forward—an arrangement which can form the basis of independence for Rhodesia. This is what we are trying to do. I hope that none of us will underestimate the difficulties, which are very big, but, so long as these talks continue, there is hope. I did mention even before the end of the election and before the resumption of the negotiations that one could see at least a ray of hope, and it is the job of all of us to try to turn it into a reality.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about the position in Aden. I share their

concern. We wholeheartedly support and are attempting to continue the initiative begun by the right hon. Gentleman leading to independence in three years' time. All of us in the House have deeply deplored the continuing incidents, stimulated from outside, which have led to outbreaks of disorder, and worse, of murder, in this area. For reasons which are well known to the House, we are not getting the co-operation we should like to have in mapping out the road to independence. There have been significant changes since the conference to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, two changes in Government there and changes in attitudes.
It is for this reason that we have suggested a constitutional commission under a very wise and skilled administrator, Sir Evelyn Hone. Frankly, it is not easy to secure acceptance of this Commission. One point which the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, failed to make is that, while it is certainly true that this Commission is not being received with unfeigned enthusiasm in the area—I think he was right there—a purely British one would have been totally unacceptable. The proposal we have made is one which may or may not secure acceptance, but it is the only thing which has any hope of securing acceptance, and it is extremely important that it should. For this reason, we have suggested that the Commission should include representatives of the Commonwealth and a non-Commonwealth representative as well.
The right hon. Gentleman referred just now to the base. His account of what happened at the conference which he convened last year was, of course, fair, right and, in those circumstances, encouraging. Our position was stated from that Box a year ago. I said then that on all the information available to us, we thought that we should need this base. It is difficult to say from the Opposition Benches; but I said, and I stand by this, as we all do, I am sure, that no base is militarily or morally defensible unless it has the support of the people of the territory in which it is sited.
All of us have learned this lesson over the past few years. There was an article in The Guardian this morning, which we have all read, I imagine, suggesting that the total cost of all bases which were built up at great cost and later abandoned


because of local hostility exceeds even the total cost of abandoned missiles and other weapons—not excluding Blue Streak, since the right hon. Gentleman is here. Thus, if the total cost of all these abandoned bases exceeds the total cost of all missiles abandoned, one is really speaking in the language of superlatives here. I hope that we have all learned the lesson that the selection of a site for building a base or maintaining a base cannot be purely a question of the convenience of ourselves, or, indeed, purely a question of how strongly we feel that the base is needed for obligations of a totally international character. It is a question of ensuring that we carry the local people with us if the base is to play a prominent part in our defence arrangements.
Whether Aden will, or should, play a permanent part in our arrangements, or to what extent it should play a part, I cannot say until the defence review is complete. Right hon. and hon. Members know all the arguments adding up to the need for it. They also know some of the difficulties. What they have not paid quite so much attention to, perhaps, is the cost of the sum total of these bases and other commitments. Whether it will, or should, be needed we shall know when the defence review is completed.
Whether it can be used will depend on our ability to secure both acceptance of our constitutional proposals and acceptance of the continuance of the base after independence. It is for this reason, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, that my right hon. Friend is proposing to constitute the Commission on the lines which have been mentioned.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman connected the setting up of this international Commission with the question of the base. I am not quite clear about that. Surely, this international Commission will not decide whether we need the base or not.

The Prime Minister: Not in the slightest. That is completely outside its terms of reference. The question of whether we need a base there or not is entirely for us to decide, until independence comes; and it is for us to negotiate, if we can, as the right hon. Gentleman set out to do, a defence

agreement with the newly-independent country in advance of independence to ensure that we have a base. I hope I have said nothing to throw doubt on that.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman just deal with this rather major point? Would the Commission have the duty to recommend the dismemberment of the Federation if it found, as the Monckton Commission did, for example, that there was clear and united opposition to its continuance?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we shall improve an already difficult situation by starting to draw analogies with other countries, least of all in Central Africa. All of us will agree that, of course, the Commission will report what it decides to report, but equally we shall all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Aden and the Federation can only make sense really as one.
I come now to British Guiana. I want to clear up any possible misunderstanding. It is absolutely clear that we intend to call a constitutional conference as early as practicable. I shall be very disappointed if it does not take place by the autumn of this year, and certainly one of the tasks of that conference will be to fix a date for independence.
A considerable part of the debate related to Commonwealth trade. A week or two ago, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out at Question Time that, after last year's Conference, I was somewhat critical of the small amount of effort and energy, to judge by the communiqué, at least—I know that communiqués are not always representative of the effort and energy—devoted to trade. For the reason I mentioned at the outset of my speech tonight, I cannot indicate what initiatives we are proposing to take. We shall be taking initiatives, and there will be a chance to report to the House afterwards. I certainly do not underrate the importance of some of the issues discussed by the right hon. Gentleman which came out of last year's conference, not purely within the field of aid, but, for example, the Commonwealth Foundation—the right hon. Gentleman is right on that—and also the question of education and matters of that kind. If I have time, I may say a little about that later.
On trade links between the Commonwealth, I feel that new initiatives need to be taken. I do not underrate the difficulties which we have had in trading with the Commonwealth and I do not want to disturb the constructive and largely non-controversial character of the debate by an attempt to estimate how far these difficulties are due to real problems arising from the nature of world economic relationships, as to some extent they are, and how far they are due to a failure to maintain the impetus of Commonwealth economic associations which were so successfully developed in the years immediately following the war.
I want to say right away that, despite the discouraging trends of recent years, I reject the doctrine, as my right hon. Friend did this afternoon, that Commonwealth trade is necessarily and irrevocably condemned by some mysterious historic and secular forces to a continuing decline. Of course it is true that the figures for the past few years have been discouraging. In 1951 and 1952 40 per cent. of Britain's trade, both ways, was wish the Commonwealth. Since then that proportion has declined by a quarter. What is serious is that this dismal trend has accelerated in recent years.
Taking the five years from 1959–64, the percentage of British exports which were accounted for by our shipments to the Commonwealth fell from 37 per cent. in 1959 to 29 per cent. in 1964. Similarly, the percentage of our import trade coining from Commonwealth sources fell over the same five years from 36 per cent. in 1959 to 31 per cent. last year.
I know that there are many sophisticated explanations of this trend. We are told that Commonwealth economic activity is expanding much less rapidly than that of more dynamic areas such as Western Europe. I am not sure that that is true and I shall come to that argument later. We are told that the growth of indigenous manufacturing industries in all Commonwealth countries, whether advanced or developing countries, places a severe limit on what we can do in trading with those areas, though while that is true I have never followed the argument which some draw from these facts that we must therefore concentrate our trade on the even more economically advanced countries of

Western Europe. If one cannot trade with a half-developed country, I am not sure why it is easier to trade with a fully-developed country.
Certainly analysis of the figures—and I have had the chance of going through them again this weekend—does not bear out this dismal theory that the Commonwealth is stagnating or is so slowly growing an area that there is not much in the way of a market for us. What it suggests is that, whether through deliberate policies, whether through neglect or indifference, or whether through a failure of our exporters to seize opportunities in Commonwealth countries, whatever the explanation, over the past few years we have failed to hold our own in the expansion of Commonwealth trade.
Let me deal with the suggestion that the Commonwealth market has lost its dynamism about imports from Britain and other countries. From 1959–64, Commonwealth imports rose by £1,989 million. While Commonwealth trade with the whole of the world increased by that figure, nearly £2,000 million, British exports accounted for only £65 million, and one would have thought that Britain, well established in these markets and still aided by substantial preference margins, would have been able to account for a higher proportion of this increasing trade of £2,000 million. However, in fact with nearly £2,000 million increase of imports into other Commonwealth countries, British exports accounted for only £65 million. In some countries there has been an actual fall over that period. In one or two countries there are special factors at work, as I said in the debate 15 months ago, in India, for example, where so much trade has gone to the United States because so much of the aid which India has had has been from the United States and has been tied aid. However, there are many other countries where that has not been the case.
Putting the problem in a different way, it can be seen how far we have fallen behind other predominantly industrial countries in supplying this growing Commonwealth market. Of the total increase of Commonwealth imports of nearly £2,000 million, we managed to corner a bare 3 per cent., Germany 4 per cent.,


Japan 12 per cent., and the United States 46 per cent., even though we had the benefit of Commonwealth preference over a wide range of goods in those markets.
If we look at the figures of individual types of commodities, with industrial goods, where we ought to have had a flying start, the position is, if anything, almost worse. Imports of chemicals into the Commonwealth showed a £85 million increase, of which we accounted for only £3 million. In non-electrical machinery, there has been an increase into the Commonwealth as a whole of £223 million, of which we have accounted for only £15 million. In electrical machinery of £80 million increased imports we account for £19 million. In transport equipment there has been an increased rate of import into other Commonwealth countries of £65 million, while our exports to those markets have actually fallen by £40 million. Taking other manufactures as a generic group, Commonwealth imports have risen to £184 million while our manufactures have actually fallen by £54 million. Taking manufactured goods as a whole, imports into the Commonwealth have risen by £682 million while the total from Britain has actually fallen by £59 million over these years.
No amount of theorising and no attempt to explain away a pretty dismal record can account for the figures which I have just given to the House. I am not trying to say this in any controversial way, but it may have been due to a feeling by our Commonwealth partners, especially after the unfortunate Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of September, 1962, that as a nation we were turning our backs on them. It may be—and I suspect very much that it may be—that this record represents a poor rate of achievement by some of our exporters who have obviously failed, as compared with our rivals in other advanced countries, to seize the opportunities open to them. In recent years there has never been the same sense of urgency and drive towards Commonwealth trade which has been shown in other directions, for example, in trade with the dollar areas, or with Western Europe.
This afternoon my right hon. Friend expressed his surprise that we did not have a Commonwealth Export Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

the Opposition said that he was glad that it had now been set up and he wished it well, but last year when we were pressing for it to be set up he could think of every kind of reason for not doing so. We have one now. I think that all of us would like to pay tribute to the energy that has been put into it, not only by those responsible for the work of the Commonwealth Export Council as a whole but also by those industrialists, exporters and bankers who are giving so much of their time to the work of the separate councils for individual Commonwealth countries.
I do not think that anyone would be in any doubt of the difficulty of reversing this trend, and getting back to anything like the 1951 figures. I am sure the whole House will feel we cannot allow this drift to go on. We cannot abdicate our still by no means insignificant position in these Commonwealth markets, so we shall have proposals to make to our Commonwealth colleagues and, even after all that has occurred, I hope that something useful and constructive will emerge.
There has been a good deal of reference today, not least by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to the question of aid and the question of development. I should like to have had more time to say something about the work of the new Ministry of Overseas Development which has replaced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Minister?"]—She is not here.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—This afternoon right hon. Gentlemen emphasised the importance of associating Europe with us in this work of development. She has been spending the whole of the afternoon and evening in conference with her opposite number—with the Minister in charge of development in Germany—and if the result of this is a greater German contribution to Commonwealth development even right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, will be able to console themselves for her absence.
For my part, I readily pay tribute to what was done in its limited field by the work of the Department of Technical Co-operation. The building of the work was started by Ernest Bevin 15 years ago with the Colombo Plan which did a great deal to provide the skilled manpower


and the specialists of all kinds for the developing countries. There are now, as my right hon. Friend said, 18,000 British people working in developing countries under technical co-operation programmes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about aid figures. He speaks of the figure he had allocated for 1964–65. We can share the credit for it. Let us not argue about which part of the year it was in. We actually exceeded the estimate of £175 million and the total was about £190 million. These figures will be still higher in 1965–66. He asked about education. We are increasing our capital aid to higher education in developing countries to £5 million a year. We are starting a scheme to give 1,000 British students, mainly graduates, the chance to study for a year in developing Commonwealth countries and to serve for at least a year after this. We are arranging to help these countries to retain British staff in university posts while also starting a particular drive to help with teacher training.
On U.N.C.T.A.D. there was a meeting in April of the Trade and Development Board in which we played our full part.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to investment in the Commonwealth and the possible effects of the Finance Bill. I do not think there is time for me now to rehearse all the arguments we may hear in the next few weeks and I think I should be out of order if I were to anticipate those debates. All of us agree that Britain must be put into a position where we can make the maximum contribution to overseas aid, whether by aid or development investments. This means a surplus on our balance of payments. The then Chancellor, Lord Butler, recognised this in 1953 when he called for a minimum surplus on our balance of payments of £300 million. Allowing for price changes it would be about £500 million today. We are not anywhere near that figure, and last year, so far from a balance of payments surplus of £500 million there was a deficit of £800 million. When we are forced to borrow from abroad we cannot afford such overseas investment as we can when we have a surplus.
I should have thought, therefore, that point one is that we have to get the balance of payments deficit down, and we are doing this. Point two is that in overseas development there must be

priorities. In the past few years there were moments when I used to point out that it was easier to get British investments for property in Manhattan, some of which proved highly unprofitable, than to get investment funds for development projects in hungry countries. So, within any given scale of investment, the direction is important.
Point three. Within any given total of investment, there is an important distinction between direct investment, which creates new assets and which very often helps our exports, and that kind of investment which simply increases portfolio investment. Given these three points, it can be said that my right hon. Friend's Bill is designed, at any rate marginally, to reduce the total flow of overseas investment, which we need to do so that we can invest more in Britain, which we need for our economic strength, and, secondly, to ensure that the emphasis within overseas investment is on direct investment, creating assets and aiding trade, rather than on portfolio investment. If the right hon. Gentleman has had the chance to study the Amendments put in the Vote Office at 7 o'clock, he will find that they contribute further to these points.
I should like, finally, to refer to the words of the Leader of the Opposition in the concluding part of his speech about the Commonwealth and Europe. He tried to analyse how far his reviving enthusiasm for joining the Common Market would mean injury to our trade with the Commonwealth. I want to pay this compliment to the right hon. Gentleman. Although he has been "all over the shop" on this question in the past year, his speech today was completely consistent with the first speech which he made on this subject in another place in 1961. It was a very important and historic speech. Some weeks before Mr. Macmillan's Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was then a member, decided to seek entry to the Common Market, he stated his own position very clearly and very much on the same lines as he stated today.
The right hon. Gentleman was then for total immersion in the Common Market even before the then Prime Minister put a toe in the water to see what it was like. The right hon. Gentleman's


argument today was still the same. He felt that Commonwealth development depends on a degree of economic strength on the part of Britain which could be achieved only by our being a part of the wider European Economic Community. He said that our experiences in aircraft underlined this, that with modern costly, sophisticated industrial products involving a high research and development charge we needed the largest possible market. This is what we are doing in the field of aircraft. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman never used his influence to see that the same thing was done in the field of computers, where very similar arguments apply.
It is right to say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was very different from the language in which he spoke in the months preceding the election. There was no suggestion then of the Conservative Party wanting to join the Common Market. South Dorset was fresh in its memory. In his own by-election in Kinross, the right hon. Gentleman did not say that his Government had secured entry and had been rejected, which is what Mr. Macmillan and the right hon Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said. He said, "When we applied for entry the terms were not suitable, so we stayed out". That is not the general historical view.
Every time that I asked the right hon. Gentleman the conditions on which he wanted to join the Common Market, he said that it was not an issue and would not be an issue in the election—presumably meaning that it would not be an issue in the present Parliament. In the election he said that the whole issue was a "dead duck". The manifesto had all sorts of beautiful pictorial stuff on the Commonwealth and about half a line on Europe about joining the Common Market. He said that we had no chance to do it anyway. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did the right hon. Gentleman say?"] I said then what I have said

ever since. What I said in the election was what Hugh Gaitskell said at Brighton, what I said in Rome and what I said in E.F.T.A. last week. But, within three months of the election, the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind and is now sounding a clarion call for entry. Fair enough.
I want to conclude by giving the right hon. Gentleman one warning. We have said the conditions on which we are prepared to go into the Common Market. [Interruption.] There is a difference between that and going in on terms which would totally disrupt Commonwealth trade. The right hon. Gentleman must realise—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to sacrifice the Commonwealth for going in: we are not. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the situation on agricultural policy in the Common Market would mean a levy of about 80 per cent. on every ton of wheat imported from Canada or Australia. This would put an enormous burden on our balance of payments—I do not know how many tens of millions a year, possibly £100 million. It would greatly increase our cost of living, therefore our wages and therefore our export costs, and the gain of getting under the tariff barrier would be lost.
If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go on making these speeches, I beseech him to recognise that this is not an issue of theology or of being or not being a good European. We have stated our conditions, whether for staying out or going in. It is a matter that cannot be glossed over by frivolous speeches or sloppy slogans.
I am sorry that I have not been able to say more about our expectations of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. I hope to be able to give the House a full report when the Conference is over.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

RACE RELATIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified]

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prohibit discrimination on racial grounds in places of public resort, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of moneys so provided under or by virtue of any provision of the said Act relating to the constitution and functions of a Race Relations Board and local conciliation committees.—[Sir F. Soskice.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us why this Money Resolution is being introduced now. I understand that its purpose is to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move in the Standing Committee Amendments to the Race Relations Bill so extensive in character as virtually to constitute a new Bill.
The Bill was introduced on 7th April, the main feature of its first part being criminal sanctions against those who practise racial discrimination. We had the Second Reading on 3rd May, when the Measure did not contain any provision for conciliation machinery or any financial Clause. The usual practice, where a Money Resolution is required, of moving that Resolution directly after the Second Reading, was not followed. The House will recall that the Opposition divided the House on the Second Reading on the ground that the Bill contained no conciliation machinery and that its main provision was based on the sanction of the criminal law. The House rejected our Amendment.
The Standing Committee first sat on 25th May, and on the same day the Home Secretary tabled to the first part of the Bill these major Amendments which really constitute a completely new Bill. He was not able to move those Amendments at that time, as they would have been out of order, without a Money Resolution. The same thing would have applied to similar Amendments put down by members of the Committee. It would

appear that the Home Office forgot to tell the Treasury that the Amendments were put down, but that a Money Resolution was required to enable them to be moved.
At the first sitting of the Standing Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a Motion which had the effect of the Bill being taken in the wrong order. The Committee started by considering the comparatively minor Clauses at the end of the Bill before being able to see the whole Bill as it stood.
The only indication that has been given on the Floor of the House that virtually a new Bill has been introduced is the moving of this Resolution. I certainly do not quarrel with the new Bill, as it will be when the Standing Committee has discussed the Amendments which the Home Secretary intends to move. What I protest at is that the House of Commons as such has had no opportunity of a Second Reading debate on what is virtually a completely new Bill.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman found that the original Bill was not acceptable generally to public opinion, he should have withdrawn it and then brought in a Bill providing for conciliation machinery, and a Bill whose merits the House could have discussed on Second Reading. We could then have had a proper Second Reading debate, the Bill would have contained a financial Clause, and a Money Resolution would have been moved at the proper time and in the normal way.
This is a further example of the chaos that is being caused and the difficulty which Parliament is being put in by the attempt of the Government to push through this mass of ill-considered legislation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): I am glad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has had an opportunity of getting all that off his chest. No doubt he feels better after it. It is mostly far from the mark, but I do not think that the Committee would be advantaged by taking up time in discussing what the hon. Member has said. He is perfectly entitled to an explanation of the reason for this Financial Resolution. He has already given it and he knew it perfectly well.
The explanation, as the hon. Member said more than once, was that an Amendment was made to Clause 1 of the Bill. It is not a new Bill. It is an Amendment to one feature of one Clause. All the rest stands exactly as it was before.
The hon. Member said that the Amendment had not been discussed. The Amendment which has been made is similar to one which was put down by way of reasoned Amendment by the Opposition on Second Reading and the form of the Amendment, which, I hope, will now appear in Clause 1, occupied a large part of the debate on Second Reading. I do not, therefore, think that the hon. Member expects to be taken seriously when he says that the Bill should have been withdrawn and an opportunity given to discuss the Amendment on Second Reading. It was discussed fully. Views were advanced from both sides. It had been long and persistently discussed in the Press and, obviously, there is great public interest in it.
I indicated on Second Reading that I was perfectly prepared to consider and listen to any arguments in favour of the Amendment which now appears on the Order Paper to Clause 1 and that—

Mr. Sharples: I hope that the Home Secretary will not underestimate the effect of the Amendments which he has put down. It is not simply an Amendment to Clause 1 which he is proposing, but a number of new Clauses in addition.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We cannot discuss the actual Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: The hon. Member has had his say. Must he really go on? I do not think that the House is very much interested in it. What the Committee is interested in—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I did not mean to be discourteous, but we have heard all this again and again. The horse has been worn out, but it has had another trot out tonight. I hope that it has gone back to its stable and will repose peacefully there.
The reason for the Money Resolution, as the hon. Member has rightly said, is the Amendment to Clause 1. The new conciliation machinery will involve a certain amount of public expenditure. That makes it necessary to move this Resolution. If the Committee desires an estimate, the best that I can give as to the probable cost involved, so far as I can give an estimate, would be about £35,000 per annum. There are the costs of the salaries of the members of the Board, administrative expenses, salaries of staff which will assist the Board and various travelling allowances, and so on, of the conciliation committees to be paid. We total them up to something like £35,000 a year.
That is made necessary by the change in Clause 1 and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a proper move now to come to the Committee before the Amendment is discussed and ask for the necessary Resolution of the House for this money to be provided.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Ross.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision as respects the registration of births, deaths and marriages in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any sums payable under that Act out of moneys so provided in respect of the salary of a Registrar General and his expenses, including salaries or remuneration of officers appointed by him, and
(ii) of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland,

(b) any payment into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Ross.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (SPRAY IRRIGATION)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Spray Irrigation (Definition) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1010), dated 15th April, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be annulled.
This is an extremely important Order to those who are engaged in agriculture, and, indeed, in horticulture as well. The first thing that I should like to say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this short debate, is that under the Water Resources Act, which was passed by the previous Administration, some authorities seem to have taken an extremely strange view of the various licences, and so on, which are necessary for the abstraction of water.
It is, I think, generally accepted, certainly outside this House, that the methods and procedures through which the ordinary farmer has to go to acquire a licence to abstract water are in most cases, in the areas of most authorities, extremely complicated and difficult. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to see that local river authorities simplify the procedure with regard to spray irrigation licences to abstract water.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. We cannot discuss the procedure of extracting water. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: To be able to spray irrigate, one has to abstract water from the river authority's area. The point that I was making was that if a farmer wants to use spray irrigation he has to apply for a licence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss why he has to apply for a licence. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As you will have noticed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Schedule to the Order refers to certain Sections of the Water Resources Act,

1963, which relate particularly to the way in which the farmer who wishes to spray irrigate should proceed about the business of getting the water to irrigate his farm and his crops. I would have thought that in that context it was in order to discuss the point that I have raised, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether, following the Question which my right hon. Friend asked the Minister of Agriculture, a circular has been sent out to the agricultural industry explaining how this matter should be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with this. The Order is limited to the definition of spray irrigation, and that is all that he may discuss.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With respect to the Chair, in view of the various changes which are being made—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. No changes are being made in the licensing arrangements. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Order proposes to make certain changes in the Water Resources Act with regard to spray irrigation. The first change that it makes is in Section 24(2). This is of particular significance to the farming community, because this Order removes spray irrigation from the provisions of that Section of the Act, and thereby allows the person who wishes to spray irrigate to be exempted for up to 1,000 gallons extraction as though he were an ordinary agricultural user of water, provided that he complies with paragraph 3 of the Order. This means that he uses the water as a combination of water and other substances for the protection of plants, as laid down in the Order. I am sure the House will appreciate that this is a considerable change from the existing situation, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether I have correctly interpreted the change, and whether the person who wishes to abstract water for spray irrigation purposes will be exempted in respect of 1,000 gallons of water so abstracted.
The next change which it is proposed to make is in Section 35(5). This means that Sections 19 and 29 of the Water Resources Act are not going to have


the effect in future which they have had up to now, and that the person who wishes to abstract water by spray irrigation can now receive a licence as of right as a non-statutory user. Previously he could not do so. He could get a licence, but not as of right. The terms and conditions were entirely different. The position is reversed under the Order. That is a very important point. It means that in granting licences as of right to non-statutory users a river authority does not have to take into account the minimum acceptable flow of the rivers from which water is to be abstracted.
Section 45 of the Act is also being changed under paragraph 3 of the Order. This is extremely important. It means that farmers who wish to extract water for spray irrigation purposes will be charged only £1 for a licence, instead of £5, as has been the case up till now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm this. This is an amelioration for which the agricultural community will be grateful. This abstraction refers to the taking of water from rivers flowing above the surface. As I understand it, Section 60 of the Act, which is also being changed, deals with abstraction from subterranean strata, and in this case there is no charge at all for people abstracting water. This will also be welcomed by the agricultural community.
I now turn to Section 63 of the Act. Here I am in a little difficulty in understanding why the change is being made. As far as I can make out, so long as the extraction satisfies paragraph 3 of the Order no special provision is made between the farmer and the authority. River authorities were empowered to make special provisions and agreements with persons wishing to abstract water, but under the Order these special agreements will no longer be possible. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can explain that.
The last Section to be affected is Section 129. As I understand it, the Minister is losing his power to prohibit the removal of water for spray irrigation purposes should there be dry weather or adverse conditions. Section 129 gives the Minister power to prohibit the abstraction of water when the level of water in the area of any river authority is too low. The Order removes that power. I welcome this provision. It is

an advance, but it requires some explanation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will state why the Minister has thought it necessary to do away with this power, in view of the fact that when the Measure was going through the House there was a good deal of discussion about the necessity for Parliament and the Minister to have the ultimate power to say "No". It was felt that a general prohibition in respect of spray irrigation was necessary in certain circumstances. That was why the Minister retained the power of prohibition, if necessary, in the national interest. As I understand paragraph 3 of the Order, the Minister no longer has the powers in Section 129 of the parent Act.
Paragraph 3(1,a) contains the word "substances" used for protecting plants against pest and disease. This is a very loose definition and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should tell the House what it means. I ask this in an exploratory spirit; I am not trying to trip him up. Of course, the point which is important is the interpretation of the word "movable" as it applies to spray irrigation equipment. I do not want to elaborate the point. I think that the definition of the word "movable", which is repeated throughout the Order is open to criticism as not being definitive. If it is definitive, it is too restrictive. Spray irrigation plant does not qualify as movable if it is connected by pipe for the extraction of inland or subterranean water.
I think that I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to do, but the actual interpretation laid down is much too narrow. The words:
… not connected by pipe to an inland water
could be open to the wrong interpretation if the authority wished to be difficult. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary does not mean to raise difficulties in this matter, and I hope that he will take this opportunity of explaining what is meant. I hope that he will send round a circular to give the maximum publicity to the Order and to the necessity to get a licence to abstract for the purpose of irrigation before 30th June. Time is running out, and the House—and the farmers—should realise this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman


will give a full and frank explanation in that circular of the way in which the Order amends the parent Act from which it flows.
This is most important, as I know in my own constituency. Farmers in my constituency are extremely confused as to how, when, where, and in what form they should apply for licences. This is apart from all the other things—which I should be out of order in discussing—under the 1963 Act. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give the maximum publicity through his Department, through the Press, and by other means to explain how we should go about this. Time is running out.
One phrase keeps occurring in the Order. It is at the bottom of page 1 in sub-paragraph (b):
by means of a combination of water and growth regulators or nutrients emerging from apparatus that is movable".
This appears on page 2 also. We are talking about water, and in using the words,
emerging from an apparatus which is movable
the hon. Gentleman is—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Coming through the pipe.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Coming through the pipe—any words which one likes. To use the words "emerging from an apparatus" is carrying Parliamentary drafting too far.
My point is concerned with 3(1,c)(ii) in which the words occur:
emerging from spray guns in so far as the water used by such guns in any period of 14 days …
Why has the hon. Gentleman decided on 14 days? I should have thought that perhaps 21 days would have been a better figure. If this is too long and it ought to be shorter, perhaps it should be seven days, but there must be some reason why the hon. Gentleman decided on 14 days. I should be grateful for an explanation. In paragraph 3(1,d) we find these rather odd words:
… a combination of water and quality additives emerging from apparatus that is movable".

What are the quality additives mentioned there? I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there is genuine concern over this matter and I trust that he will define the meaning of "quality additives" to everyone's satisfaction.
When we pass on to paragraph 3(2,a) we find an equally baffling provision, referring to:
… a building or other structure … used for the production of agricultural produce, being a building or structure which excludes from the plants growing in or under it water falling as rain".
Water falling as rain? What does that mean? I take it that that applies to spray irrigation inside a building. Could we be given a further explanation? I assume, too, that the use of the word "agriculture" means that the provision also applies to horticulture. This subparagraph is, no doubt, concerned with horticultural produce such as lettuces and tomatoes. If so, it brings us to the following sub-paragraph, which refers to:
… land in the immediate vicinity of cloches…
On the one hand we must consider produce growing in a greenhouse and on the other produce growing under cloches. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us further on this point. In any case, what is meant by "in the immediate vicinity"? How near to something is "the immediate vicinity"—two to four inches or a couple of feet?
These small points of detail must be made clear for the sake of those in the horticulture and agriculture industries. They must know exactly by which method they much apply for licences to enable them to carry out spray irrigation and what changes have been made compared with the provisions in the 1963 Act. The people in the industry must know what to do, if they are to take advantage of this concession—and it is a concession. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take great care, as will the Ministry generally, to ensure that all the people concerned are clear about the provisions contained in the Order, so that they may take advantage of the concession.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)


has referred to the provisions of the Order as including concessions to farmers. I represent a constituency where a good deal of spray irrigation is done and where we all hope that more will be done. I am sure that my farmers would appreciate the concessions mentioned by my hon. Friend if they were a little more easily able to understand the language in which the concessions are couched. We have received requests from farmers to explain other Orders in connection with the Water Resources Act. It is in order to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary three very short and precise questions that I venture to rise.
The first question has been touched on by my hon. Friend. Paragraph 3(1,c)(ii) refers to water and manure or dung emerging from spray guns in any period of 14 days. I reinforce my hon. Friend's request that the period of 14 days should be explained. It is not clear to me why it should be 14 days. I may express a personal interest in having had a large piggery where large quantities of combined water and manure accumulated. I should like to know why the period of 14 days was chosen, because if it is a rainy 14 days there is more material than if it is a dry 14 days.
My second precise question concerns para. 3(2,a). It appears that it will not be regarded as spray irrigation if the watering is carried out
within a building or other structure".
I should like to know if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary includes the very large areas which can be covered by plastic and polyethylene sheeting. I have seen in some areas in the United States literally acres of land under such sheeting. Does the Parliamentary Secretary include that as a building, because a great deal of spraying could take place and a great deal of water could be used inside polyethylene sheets, which sometimes cover areas several times the size of a football pitch. Precisely what do the Government mean by "a building or other structure", and does it include a polyethylene covered area?
My last question concerns para. 3(2,b), which deals with
land in the immediate vicinity of cloches".

I ask the same question. Could the Parliamentary Secretary supply a more precise definition of how big a cloche is? The ordinary person thinks of a cloche in a garden as being a comparatively small thing no bigger than the Dispatch Box. Nowadays people are thinking of cloches very much larger than that. If we are to have to interpret these Orders or ask officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the Water Resources Board to interpret them, we must have a rather more precise definition than is given in the Order. I am sure that farmers in the West Suffolk area would be most grateful for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's clarification of these points.

10.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): This is a rather complex problem. I do not object to all the questions which have been asked. I shall try to answer most of them. Some hon. Members may not be as intimately acquainted with the terms of the Act as is the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). After all, the hon. Gentleman played a considerable part in carrying through the 1963 Act. I hope that the House will remember that it is from that Act that the Order flows.
The Act prohibits the abstraction of water from any source of supply without a licence, subject only to a few specified exceptions. Agriculture was placed in a relatively favourable position, but an important distinction was made between spray irrigation, on the one hand, and agriculture other than spray irrigation, on the other.
Agriculture other than spray irrigation has been treated quite generously—and I think that the hon. Gentleman conceded this—since it does not use very large quantities of water. No licence is required for abstractions for this purpose from rivers and streams. Although abstractions from underground sources for agricultural purposes are subject to licence, the licence fee is only one-fifth of that charged for abstractions for other uses and there will be no charge for the water abstracted.
Spray irrigation, on the contrary, is treated quite stringently. First, a licence at the full fee of £5 is required for


abstractions from any source for spray irrigation, and in addition there will be a charge for the water. Secondly, the licence of right to which existing abstractors are entitled is qualified in the case of abstractions for spray irrigation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that. I have already ruled that we cannot discuss the licensing.

Mr. Hoy: With due respect, I shall not discuss that, but it will be impossible to explain what the Order does if I am not permitted to say what the licence would be for. The question of the licence will no doubt be a subject for debate later on—it already has been debated once, but I understand might well be raised again—but I cannot very well explain the charge without saying what the charge is for.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not discussing the charge under the Order but the definition of spray irrigation.

Sir Martin Redmayne: On a point of order. May I intervene on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary? There is enormous interest in this subject and a good deal of anxiety in the country. If you can stretch the point a little, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be of tremendous help to agriculture and horticulture.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well, as long as the debate does not go wide.

Mr. Hoy: I will not take it wide. I have spent too long in this place already, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) that if I explained this point it would be of interest to agriculturists and horticulturists.
As I said, the licence of right to which existing abstractors are entitled is qualified in the case of abstractions for spray irrigation. Existing abstractors are entitled to a licence of right for the quantities of water they have taken at any time in the five years preceding 1st April this year. But abstractors of water for spray irrigation do not enjoy this right, unless abstractions for this purpose were taking place before the date when the Act was passed or a reservoir to facilitate spray irrigation was in the process of being built at that time and was completed before 1st April this year.
Finally, and most stringent of all, abstractions for spray irrigation may be restricted or prohibited altogether in time of drought. The main reason for this sharp distinction between spray irrigation and other agricultural uses was the large quantities of water used in irrigation, very little of which returns to a source for further use. But the definition of spray irrigation in the Act is very wide. It is:
… the irrigation of land or plants (including seeds) by means of water or other liquid emerging (in whatever form) from apparatus designed to eject liquid into the air in the form of jets or spray".
This definition in the 1963 Act embraces many essential agricultural activities, such as pest or weed control which would not normally be regarded as spray irrigation, which do not use large quantities of water and on which these restrictions are hard to justify. Indeed, it was accepted by the Government at the time that there would have to be exceptions of this kind made to the comprehensive definition adopted.
The first purpose of the Order, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to have annulled—I quite understand his reasons—is, therefore, to exclude from the definition of spray irrigation for the purposes of the Act the spraying of pesticides, fungicides, nutrients, growth regulators or additives by means of mobile spraying machines or the spraying of organic irrigation by means of mobile spreaders, or, subject to certain limitations, by spray guns. I hope that this has explained a considerable number of the points raised.
The Order has been framed narrowly, with the intention of relaxing control only over operations that can use very small quantities of water.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about size. If, in practice, it proves that the relaxation can be used as a means of evading proper control over spray irrigation, my right hon. Friends will have to consider amending the present Order. Similarly, of course, if experience shows that there is a good case for exempting other operations from stringent control and it can be done without damage to the conservation of water resources, they will be prepared to consider a further Order excepting them. We shall have to see how this particular section of the Order works. We hope that it will work well, as laid


down, but I make these two provisos, in the one case, if it is overdone, and, in the other, if it is underdone.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that ordinary spray irrigation of crops and so on with plain water is not touched by the Order, and that I fully understand, but, in the light of the operation of the Order, he may bring forward later a further Order exempting ordinary spray irrigation with ordinary water from the provisions of the 1963 Act?

Mr. Hoy: If this concession is abused, then, perhaps, we shall have to take power to do the other thing and have more restriction; on the other hand, if we find in practice that it is not necessary to apply the Act to other operations which come within the definition of spray irrigation, we shall make an Order to that effect.
The Order deals with another aspect of spray irrigation. Under Sections 45 and 129, restrictions or a complete prohibition could be placed on spray irrigation in times of drought; and my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and of Agriculture are at present considering an application by the Essex River Authority to impose a complete prohibition for three months on abstractions of water for spray irrigation. The East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority also has given notice of its intention to seek restrictions on abstractions for spray irrigation.
A ban on irrigation would, of course, be serious enough for crops in the open but it must be disastrous for crops grown under glass since these have a much higher transpiration rate and yet would be unable to receive even the natural rainfall. Accordingly, the Order provides that such restrictions should not apply to crops under glass. In this connection, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not quite go so far as to talk about the kind of erections he saw in America. I should think that the answer to his question is probably "No" in relation to acres covered as he described.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is an important point on the definition of what is included and what is not in the word "cloche" or the term greenhouse, for that matter, or covered space. My hon. Friend has raised an important

question. I shall not press the hon. Gentleman to reply now, but I hope that he will take it away and consider it, perhaps issuing a statement later on, by some means at his disposal, closely defining what is included. I am not sure that his interpretation is right on this particular aspect of the matter.

Mr. Hoy: I am saying that we were thinking of the normal coverage of glass, and the hon. Gentleman told us that he had seen in America acres covered by polythene. We were not thinking of that type of exclusion when dealing with this point. I am being quite honest with the hon. Gentleman and telling him that we had not thought of that, and for that reason did not refer to it in the exemption.
The hon. Gentleman complained that there was, apparently, a great deal of misunderstanding about this. On behalf of the Department, I must tell the House that we have seen no evidence that there is so much confusion among the farming community about the need to apply for licences, but, if the Order or the manner of its announcement has caused any misunderstanding, I regret it. As everyone must recognise, we are dealing with a complex subject, and I therefore, welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to summarise the position as clearly as I can.
Abstraction of water, whether from watercourses or underground strata, for ordinary spray irrigation requires a licence at the full fee, is subject to charges for the water, and is not affected by this Order. Abstractions from any watercourse for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation do not require a licence provided the water is used on riparian land. Therefore, a farmer who wishes to abstract water for spraying pesticides or for organic irrigation or for any of the other purposes which we have exempted from the definition of spray irrigation by this Order will not need to apply for a licence, provided he does not wish to abstract water for spray irrigation purposes. He therefore has no licence fee and pays nothing for his water.
Abstractions from underground sources for any agricultural purpose need a licence anyway, and the Order does not affect the need for farmers using underground strata to apply for licences. They


will normally pay a licence fee of £1, and no other charge for water. Only farmers who use water for spray irrigation—which will not now include those operations specifically exempted by this Order—will have to pay the full fee of £5 as well as the charge for water, and only spray irrigators, in applying for a licence of right, will have to meet the more stringent criteria to which I referred earlier in order to be able to abstract the quantities they have abstracted in the past.
The second part of the Order, dealing with the irrigation of crops under glass, does not in any way affect the need to apply for a licence. It merely saves crops under glass from the disaster that would otherwise have struck them when prohibitions or restrictions were imposed on spray irrigation generally.
If any farmer is still in doubt on the need to apply for a licence he can go for advice to any local office of my Ministry, or to his union or to his river authority. But, as my right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question on 19th May, the safe rule is, if in doubt apply for a licence; and do so by 30th June, which is the last date for existing abstractors to establish their claim to a licence of right.
It is said that we might have had two Orders instead of one, but I think that as the object in both cases was the same it was better to have one Order. Both parts of the Order were being made under the same Section of the Act, and it would, in my view, merely have caused confusion to make two separate Orders. I might add that the National Farmers' Union, which saw the Order in draft, warmly welcomed these provisions and certainly did not suggest that they should not be combined in a single Order. It is difficult to see how anyone taking the trouble to read the Order could possibly be confused into thinking that paragraph 3(2) in any way affected the question of licences, since it specifically and exclusively refers to Sections 45 and 129 of the Act.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I understand paragraph 3(2), even greenhouses, cloches, and so on, will still need a licence to be obtained at the ordinary rate of £5. Am

I right in thinking the Order does not exempt from that payment?

Mr. Hoy: I think that under the present Order the fee will be as the hon. Gentleman has said. I will check that, and make sure. When dealing with these licences as between £1 and £5 it is sometimes difficult to remember which type is which. But I will certainly confirm that point for the hon. Gentleman.
It is true that time is running out in regard to these Orders. The responsibility should not be placed upon this side of the House. The Act has been in operation for some time and if consultations had taken place earlier, these arrangements might have been started while the hon. Gentleman's party were in office. We have sought to take everybody into consultation, as one must do of necessity before reaching agreement on the Order.
It was suggested that every farmer concerned might have been circularised, but the job was far too big. The National Farmers' Union agreed that the action we had taken was ample. Everybody has been informed. Notices have been printed and exhibited. We have used the radio and we have gone to considerable trouble to ensure that everyone involved has got to know about the situation. Indeed, on a recent occasion when the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) moved a Prayer, he said that he could not read a farmers' journal without seeing this matter discussed and that farmers were well aware of it. If they were well aware of it some weeks ago, they are no less aware of it tonight.
The period of 14 days has been referred to and I was asked whether we should not have chosen seven or 21 days. We restricted the period to the normal size of tank on a small farm. I do not say that 14 days is the absolutely correct figure, but it seemed to us to be reasonable in the circumstances.
As the hon. Member has said, the definition of "movable" is meant to be restrictive. We want to protect water from being wasted and we thought that "movable" in this sense was the best way to achieve that. It is difficult to make a more specific definition than we have used.
The hon. Member complains first that we are too restrictive and then that we are not restrictive enough. What the


Department has to do, and what we have done in consultation with the people who will be affected by the Order, is to get the best possible definition to meet the greatest number of cases. That is what we have done in the Order. There may be one or two points of which people are not well aware and which, perhaps, I have not explained properly, but I have tried to Summarise what is essential under the Order and I hope that in doing so I have made the situation clear to the farming community.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the hon. Gentleman explain briefly two points on which I still am not clear? I am concerned with the combination of water and manure in paragraph 31(1,c). What worries me, to put it crudely, is the possibility that if a farmer were unscrupulous and sought to evade the purpose of the Order, all that he has to do is to use as much water as he likes and that as long as he puts in a little dab of manure, he is perfectly in order.
The phrase in paragraph 3 is
by means of a combination of water and manure or dung".
If the combination is 99·9 per cent. water and merely the slightest amount of manure, as far as I can see the abstractor can take as much as he likes. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer this.

Mr. Hoy: I cannot give a precise definition of what the components should be. I am not underestimating the difficulty, and I am not suggesting that there may not be farmers who are unscrupulous enough to keep filling up with water and putting in only a little manure. The whole purpose of the Order is to get people to work the arrangement reasonably, because it is for the benefit of the industry. People can abuse anything, but we hope that in this case they will be reasonable in doing what is requested of them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his full and clear explanation. I must, however, qualify my use of the word "clear". It is clear inasmuch as the whole business is extremely complicated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not have moved our Motion if there had not been a great deal of confusion among farming constituents as to the meaning.
I impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that there is a great deal of confusion about interpretation, although this debate and his admirable speech have clarified some of the points. However, there are others which remain in a murky atmosphere but not because of what my hon. Friend said. This only illustrates the difficulty under which we are labouring. I hope that he will consider every means of explanation, interpretation and above all simplification. It is not very long until 30th June, and all of us want to see this Order operating efficiently. It will be to the advantage of the industry. Any help that the Parliamentary Secretary can give will be greatly appreciated.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON ROAD, ST. ALBANS (SPEED LIMIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I hesitate to detain the House at this late hour on the day after an all-night sitting; but, having been successful in the Ballot and thus having the opportunity of addressing the Parliamentary Secretary, who very courteously has come here tonight, I do not want to risk being unlucky the next time.
The question which I wish to raise is a constituency matter, but it does have wider implications. It is the raising of a speed limit from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour on a length of the London Road from Cunningham Hill Road to Drake's Drive. This is part of the A.6 trunk road, which was the main trunk road before the M.10 was built. It is still used by a great deal of through traffic, particularly heavy commercial vehicles which are attracted away from the M.1 by cafés near London Colney. The road is flanked by extensive residential development, which is still increasing, and there is anxiety on the part of my constituents and the St. Albans City Council, who have been opposed to these increases all along. There is a large and increasing child population on either side


of the road and many children have to cross the road to go to the Francis Bacon Grammar School or the Cunningham Hill School or to catch a bus.
There is no pedestrian crossing, although I know that the Minister has in mind the possibility of a subway at a later stage. At present there are occasions when it takes a pedestrian some 10 minutes to cross the road.
Long before the speed limit was increased to 40 m.p.h. the illuminated bollards in the middle of the road were knocked down and demolished with monotonous regularity by vehicles travelling at too high a speed. There are two factories in the vicinity, and this results in much crossing traffic, particularly cycles, and there has been a great deal of concern since the Minister first proposed the raising of the speed limit.
The history commences with a letter from the City Council on 27th March, 1963, in which it expressed to the Minister its view that it was wrong to increase the limit. It drew attention to the amount of crossing traffic from Milehouse Lane to St. Vincent Drive and vice versa, especially cycles going to the R.A.C. works in New Barnes Avenue. The City Engineer took the trouble to measure the flow of cyclists crossing this section of the road at various times, and the figures that he gave to the Minister are rather instructive. For instance, between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. 453 cyclists crossed the main road. Between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. there were 292, and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. there were about 420.
The City Council at that time drew attention to the fact that the new outer ring road was being built, or being sign-posted, and that traffic would be turning right into Drake's Avenue across oncoming traffic leaving St. Albans in a southerly direction. The Minister's reply of 8th January, 1964, which was somewhat belated, in answer to a letter of 27th March, 1963, said that this road
was intermediate in character, between the rural and fully built up sections on either side, and therefore forms a natural transition between an unrestricted length and one subject to a 30 miles per hour speed limit.
Surely it is not always the case that one has to have this transitional speed limit of 40 m.p.h. between a 30 m.p.h. area and a de-restricted area?
It was stated by the Minister that observance of the speed limit was poor but speeds were not generally high. I should have thought that either the law was being broken, or they were within the law, and one does not take a satisfactory view of them breaking the law.
It was said that the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic was not high, but when was this measured by the Ministry officials? Were they there between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. when much of this traffic was coming through, and at other peak hours? Or did they have their own sample times in the middle of the day?
It was said in the letter that the accident record was not unfavourable for this class of road. Does one have to wait until the accident record is unfavourable before the Minister will listen to the representations of the local authority which has greater opportunities of observing conditions on the road than have his officials?
We then had the statement that a
higher speed limit would be unlikely to lead either to an increase in accidents or to a substantial increase in vehicular speeds, but should result in a better standard of enforcement.
That causes me to ask three questions. How can it be said that there will be no increase in accidents? The mere fact that one is increasing the limit to 40 m.p.h. means that traffic will be able to move more rapidly along the road, and therefore in all probability it will attract more traffic on to the road which would otherwise have gone on to the M.10. If there is an increased flow of traffic, there is likely to be an increase in the number of accidents.
It was said that there would be
no substantial increase in vehicular speeds.
My experience of driving in an area with a 30 m.p.h. limit is that a lot of other drivers pass me doing 40, no doubt reckoning that if they see a patrol car they will have time to slow down before they are checked for speeding. I find that even when I drive at 40 m.p.h. I am passed by vehicles, some of them heavy commercial ones.
Then there is the statement about "better standards of enforcement." I do not see how one can say that the right way to get better enforcement is to move


the speed limit up so that the motorist who is driving too fast is no longer doing so. It seems to me that the only satisfactory method of enforcement is to increase the number of police patrols, but that is a separate matter which will have to be pursued at another time.
The City Council wrote to the Minister on 13th February, in reply to this letter, saying how concerned it was at his determination to carry out his decision, and it drew attention to the fact that it considered that the danger of increased accidents was out of all proportion to the time saved by motorists. I think that along this section of the road about 30 seconds would be saved by travelling at 40 instead of 30—that is, if the driver stuck to the speed limit. A driver's speed is generally checked by the traffic lights further along, in the centre of the town, so that 30 seconds would probably be lost at the traffic lights later.
The City Council felt that the Minister should have been more ready to be guided by its views, and it asked him to look again at the matter. It asked that representatives of the Minister should come down to the site and meet members of the council. This was done, and the council was grateful that these arrangements were made.
It was at this stage that I came into this dispute, and I wrote to the then Minister in February, 1964. I had a reply dated 16th March, in which I was told that the object was not to enable drivers to travel more quickly over this particular length of the A6 road. But, if the object was not to encourage more speed, I wonder what on earth was the object in increasing the speed limit. The argument was put to me that the Minister was trying to make speed limits more realistic and that, if seen to be more realistic, there would be a more willing compliance on the part of drivers. It was suggested that, seen in this light, the removal or raising of the limit in appropriate places was calculated to improve road safety.
But the main burden of my argument, and that of the City Council, is that this is not appropriate in a highly residential district with schools on one side of the road, and with children crossing at a number of places. However, the Minister sent his representatives, but I was

then disturbed to find that the local council felt that its representations on the subject were given very little weight. The impression got about that the Minister's mind had already been made up.
On 25th February this year, I presented a petition containing 1,100 signatures, or some 95 per cent. of those people canvassed in the immediate vicinity on this subject, but we have found that, over and over again, in these matters of local traffic regulation, whether it be for pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, and so on, the local authority may take one view while the Minister and his staff always seem to turn it down, and that then, only a year or so later, the Minister suddenly decides to accept the view of the local authority.
This was so in the matter of the construction of the ring road around St. Albans when the widening of roads, and so on, had to be carried out. The City Council asked for traffic lights at the main junctions and after two visits to the city, the Minister agreed to lights in some places but not in others. After a year or so had passed, the Minister agreed to more traffic lights. There are two crossings on this ring road which need lights and, in the end, I suppose we shall get them; but why all this long delay, with a great deal of ill feeling created betwen the local authority and the Ministry? A great deal of time is wasted and, since time is money, there is a waste of money, too.
This has happened in the case of repeater 30 mile-an-hour signs on the ring road, put up by the Road Safety Council. The Minister has ordered the removal of these signs as "unauthorised traffic signs", but the Council has refused to comply and, in the end, I suppose the Minister will agree. Then we shall have what the right hon. Gentleman will call "authorised signs". Could not the Minister have another look at this particular section of road, and say that he is prepared to accept representations of the City Council in the light of the experience gained from the operation of the 40 m.p.h. limit over four or five weeks? Great and wasteful delays in time and money are caused where the local authority has such great knowledge of local conditions and can observe them by day and night, but the Minister takes


a completely opposite view. The local authority is in a good position to decide what is best for its own traffic conditions.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The Ministry has a considerable file of correspondence with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), the City Council of St. Albans, and some of his constituents. I well understand the anxieties and feelings which have been expressed. Some of the things said by the hon. Member have very wide implications, and perhaps we can discuss them at some time in a wider debate.
The rôle of local highway authorities is a most important one, because they are the men on the spot, who know the conditions and who have to advise us as to what should be done. Nevertheless, there is a persistent need to establish national standards of respect by motorists for signs and regulations—national standards for the management of traffic and for the regulation of the highways. A very important part of our job in the Ministry is the reconciliation of the judgment made by those who have responsibility for highways locally with the need for national standards that we are attempting to establish. I hope to be able to convince the hon. Member tonight and, through the House, his constituents, that the action we have taken in connection with the speed limit in London Road is justified, and that the fears expressed by the local residents are groundless. Nevertheless, we are always ready to consider repesentations based on the facts.
First, I want to make a few general observations about the problem. I am sure that the House and the country would agree that the most important thing about speed limits is that they should be observed, and fixed realistically so that they will be observed. Then they can be enforced. It is this basic idea which prompted the general review of speed limits which the Ministry of Transport started some time ago, under my right hon. Friend's predecessor. It was clear then that many 30 m.p.h. speed limits were being widely disregarded—we have all had experience of that—because they were unrealistic in the light

of the conditions on certain stretches of road.
Part of the review was and is directed towards the careful examination of places where a 40 m.p.h. limit might be more realistic and more widely observed and respected by drivers and, therefore, in the end, safer for road users, because they would know where they were. This was the point that I endeavoured to explain at some length in a letter I wrote to the hon. Member recently, and there is nothing on the general point that I can add to that.
I now turn to the salient points about this stretch of road. It is about 900 yards long, forming part of the A.6 trunk road between the junction of Cunningham Hill Road and Green Lane. It is a straight piece of road, somewhat undulating, and it varies in width from 26 ft. to 40 ft. There are 7 ft. wide footpaths on either side, and intermittent verges up to 15 ft. wide. As the hon. Member said, the development on the road is described as intermediate in character—intermediate in the sense that it is something between a fully built-up and a rural road. There are only two accesses on the north-east side and only one on the south-west, although, on this side, the houses fronting the road have individual accesses, and I am advised that the lighting is up to Group A standards.
The hon. Member has described the history of this controversy in some detail and I do not wish to repeat it. After very careful consideration of all the objections, which I have examined myself in the records—they lasted from March, 1963, to October, 1964—the Minister decided to make the Order, which eventually came into force on 20th April this year, raising the speed limit on this 900 yards stretch of the A.6 from 30 to 40 m.p.h. I should inform the House that the police were entirely in favour of this measure, and gave their advice from the beginning of the discussions.
We feel that a great many other factors also support us in this decision. The speed check taken on two separate occasions in April last year revealed that a large proportion of the traffic in both directions was already travelling at almost 40 m.p.h. and was not observing the 30 m.p.h. limit then in force. In raising the limit to 40 m.p.h.—

Mr. Goodhew: rose—

Mr. Swingler: I take the hon. Member's point about enforcement, but we have to consider whether it is on the one hand possible to enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit, or, on the other hand, whether we should keep up with the actual behaviour of the traffic, a majority of which was already travelling between 30 and 40 m.p.h. We have a great deal of evidence to show that raising the speed limit in cases like this makes no appreciable difference to the speed of the traffic.
I will now deal with some of the individual points of objection. It is said that a large volume of traffic crosses London Road from Milehouse Lane, on the south-west, into St. Vincent Drive on the north-east, and vice versa. Our traffic count confirmed this, though it showed that the total volume of traffic on the road is not at all heavy, but careful observation—and there has been careful observation at these points—has shown no danger or difficulties in this move.
The hon. Member made a point about pedestrian crossing facilities. Again, the counts which have been taken show only light pedestrian traffic. As the hon. Member said, the greater part of this is crossing by schoolchildren. Talks are taking place locally about the provision of a school crossing patrol, and this, as the hon. Member will know, is a matter which must be settled locally. We have also asked the Department of Education and Science whether the local authority would be prepared to contribute 75 per cent. of the £30,000 which we estimate would be needed for a subway, since the schoolchildren would be the main beneficiaries. We are certainly prepared to enter into discussions in order to do that, to ensure maximum safety for the schoolchildren.
Otherwise, observation shows that pedestrians have little difficulty in crossing this road, and this will certainly not increase. As I have said, we expect little change in actual vehicle speeds as a result of raising the speed limit.
Turning traffic at the junction of the newly signposted ring road at Drake's Drive is also said to be a problem. We have in mind a scheme for widening 250 yards of the London Road near this junction, but this will depend on a number

of factors, including the availability of funds.
Dips in the road are said to obscure oncoming traffic, but our officials who have been to the site feel that vehicles come into view while still a good distance from anyone who is crossing the road. As the hon. Gentleman said, the accident record does not indicate any special danger. I agree, but I emphasise that it is not the case that there must be accidents to justify any change. The change that is taking place here is justified, we say, by a realistic observation of the behaviour of the people using the road.
I cannot see why raising the speed limit will in any way encourage heavy lorries to go through St. Albans instead of using the motorway. There will still be a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in the town centre and the motorway is manifestly better for through traffic. I cannot imagine that drivers will willingly go through St. Albans instead of using the motorway.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of enforcement and I agree that it has been a problem. That is why we have been in close consultation with the police about a realistic speed limit on this road. The hon. Gentleman said that this will be a transitional limit, between a 30 m.p.h. road and an unrestricted road. The problem occurs in many areas. We must take account of the natural behaviour of drivers in deciding upon a speed limit that can be enforced. The idea here is that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is reasonable and realistic in the conditions that prevail.

Mr. Goodhew: Does that mean that if experience shows that traffic is travelling at nearer 50 m.p.h., the Minister will then change the speed limit on this road to 50 m.p.h. and so bring it into line with current behaviour?

Mr. Swingler: It does not mean that. We must take into account a speed limit that is enforceable, that will be respected and that takes into account the motorist and the pedestrian. We have made our decision on the basis of the survey of traffic volume and the number of pedestrians crossing the road.
As I said at the outset, we are prepared to keep this matter constantly under review. If it should prove that the


raising of the speed limit will not ensure safety on this stretch of road, we will be prepared to consider changing it. We are confident at present that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit will be enforceable and respected by motorists. I must, therefore, tell the hon. Gentleman that at present we see no justification for reconsidering our decision, a decision which

was taken after long and thorough investigation and consultation. However, we will be prepared to consider any matters regarding road safety to which our attention is drawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.